What terrorism is — the definitional problem

Terrorism uses violence, or the threat of it, to induce fear and achieve political, religious or ideological ends — a psychological (fear-inducing) and physical (violent) act.

• Asymmetrical warfare → smaller groups adopt unconventional tactics against stronger states; terrorism as the weapon of the weak.
• Reliance on a war of attrition → sustained attacks wear down an opponent’s resources and resolve; propaganda is central, amplified by media.
• Definitions diverge → the CIA and the UN stress criminal acts intended to provoke terror for political ends across borders; India defines it under laws such as TADA (explosives/lethal weapons to cause death or damage and destabilise governance or social harmony).
• Subjectivity → one side’s patriot is another’s terrorist; the difficulty is akin to the blind men and the elephant — each grasps only a part.

Evolution of terrorism

From state terror to a borderless religious form. Reign of Terror (France 1793–94 · Jacobins · Robespierre) → Communist (Bolsheviks · Red Brigades · Shining Path) → Nationalist (IRA · PLO · anti-colonial claims) → Religious (Al-Qaeda · ISIS · transcends borders)

The term is born of the Reign of Terror (1793–94) — the Jacobins under Robespierre using fear and mass executions, an early state-sponsored terror. Communist forms sought to overthrow capitalist order; nationalist forms pressed sovereignty claims; religious forms use faith to justify violence and cross borders, making them hard to combat.

Classification & types

Two axes → from above (initiated or funded by governments) and from below (non-state actors acting independently of the state).

The changing nature of terrorism

• Older groups sought specific political ends (independence, reform) and were open to negotiation (PLO, ETA); modern terrorism is driven by a sense of sacred duty — violence as part of a greater religious mission.
• Older organisations were largely secular; many of today’s are rooted in religious or ideological extremism.
• Al-Qaeda was an organised institution; ISIS is a broader ideology, encouraging individuals to act without central coordination → a rise in lone-wolf attacks by those radicalised online, harder to predict and prevent.
• The concept of martyrdom has shifted — many now view themselves as heroes willing to die; groups are decentralised, running on ideology rather than hierarchy, spreading influence and recruitment worldwide.

Schools of thought on terrorism

Terrorism & globalisation

James Kiras → global terrorism concentrates on three areas tied to globalisation.

• Culture → violence to defend traditions against a “cultural tsunami” of Western products and materialism; Samuel Huntington → a fault line between liberal Western civilisation and an Islamic one resentful of Western dominance.
• Economics → the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001 struck an icon of global capitalism, not just US policy; Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory → globalisation perpetuates Western imperialism, disrupting the Global South and pushing marginalised youth toward groups like ISIS.
• Technologies → better proselytising, coordination and mobility; ISIS’s use of Twitter and Telegram; Boko Haram drawing on poverty and neglect in Nigeria.

Anthony Giddens → globalisation is not only Western dominance; it affects the US as much as others (11 September 2001). Terrorism is not solely a product of globalisation → the IRA and the Mau Mau arose from local grievances, and Al-Qaeda traces to Cold War support for Islamist groups in the Soviet–Afghan war. Maha Azzam → ‘Islamist/Jihadist terrorism’ is best read as a violent response to political conditions in a politico-religious idiom, going global as elements realigned against the “far enemy,” the West.

Strategies to deal with terrorism

• War of attrition → consistent, gradual pressure to weaken organisations over time, avoiding direct confrontation.
• War of manoeuvre → adaptability, intelligence and disruption — cutting off resources and winning local support.
• Excessive force is counter-productive → authoritarian tactics erode trust and alienate populations, feeding further violence.

Global response & conventions

The response evolved in phases — early instruments (1960s–early 1990s) secured aviation and shipping; later phases addressed bombings, terror financing and nuclear terrorism.

• 1963 Convention on Offences on Board Aircraft → the first international treaty against terrorism; five more sectoral conventions in the 1970s.
• FATF → global standards against terror financing, with grey-listing for heightened monitoring; the SCO’s RATS for regional counter-terrorism in Central Asia.
• CCIT → proposed by India to criminalise all forms of terrorism and deny terrorists, financiers and supporters access to funds, arms and safe havens.
• UN Security Council → Resolution 1267 (asset freezes on designated terrorists, with China at times resisting cases such as Hafiz Saeed), 1373 (counter-terrorism measures), 1624 (criminalising incitement).
• Sectoral conventions → 1997 Terrorist Bombings, 1999 Financing of Terrorism, 2005 Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The US’s post-9/11 Global War on Terrorism dismantled organisations but brought instability and the rise of ISIS.
• The world still lacks a comprehensive convention → BRICS reject “double standards” and press to finalise the CCIT; India holds that classifying terrorists as “good” or “bad” for convenience must end.

Build the answer on

• 1963 Aircraft Convention as the first treaty; five more sectoral conventions in the 1970s; post-9/11 conventions on bombings, financing and nuclear terrorism — a widening scope.
• FATF (grey-listing) and the SCO’s RATS as financial and regional instruments; UNSC 1267, 1373, 1624 for asset freezes, measures and incitement.
• The gaps → the stalled CCIT (no agreed definition — one state’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter); China’s resistance (Hafiz Saeed) as selective application and “double standards.”
• A persisting scourge → terrorism has engulfed regions as large as nations (Afghanistan, Syria), questioning efficacy.
• Way forward → finalise the CCIT, end the “good/bad terrorist” distinction, and pair enforcement with the rule of law (Kofi Annan).

India’s plan & Kofi Annan’s 5 D’s

India’s five-point plan at the UN → intelligence sharing; preventing abuse of communication platforms for propaganda and recruitment; stronger border security; movement control over suspected terrorists; accountability of states that harbour terrorists. In January 2021, at the twentieth anniversary of Resolution 1373, India added an eight-point action plan — summoning political will, decrying double standards, objective enlisting and delisting under UN sanctions, and addressing the terrorism–organised-crime link.

Kofi Annan’s five-point strategy — the 5 D’s: Dissuade — address root causes · Deny means — funds, arms, tech · Deter states — pressure sponsors · Develop capacity — legal & security · Defend human rights

Terrorism & the restriction of human rights

• Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) → life without a strong authority is chaotic, so in a crisis the state may limit freedoms to ensure safety; surveillance can be justified because the protection of life is paramount.
• John Locke (Second Treatise of Government) → government exists to safeguard life, liberty and property; any action infringing these rights must be limited and carefully controlled.
• Jurgen Habermas → governments must still respect democratic values, since excessive restrictions on rights corrode the moral foundations of a society.

Technology & the changing face of terrorism

• Bruce Hoffman → terrorism continuously adapts to the political, social and technological setting; the internet has transformed radicalisation, recruitment and coordination.
• Social media → Twitter, Telegram and YouTube exploited by ISIS and Al-Qaeda (the ISIS magazine Dabiq); encrypted apps (Telegram, Signal, WhatsApp) evade surveillance (2015 Paris attacks); AI-generated content and deepfakes worsen disinformation.
• Richard Danzig → technologies such as CRISPR may let non-state actors create pandemic-like biological threats.
• Audrey Kurth Cronin (Power to the People, 2019) → “the future of terrorism will be shaped by the democratisation of technology,” making adaptive counter-terrorism indispensable. Brahma Chellaney → concerted information campaigns can help discredit radical ideologies in West and Central Asia.

“It’s like an ancient story — you can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard too.”

Hillary Clinton

Terrorism — assessment

• Andrew Heywood → terrorism is an essentially contested concept, marked by normative disagreement over its definition, legitimacy and implications for civil liberties and state power.
• Noam Chomsky → the line between state and non-state terror stays blurred, so its conceptual foundations need critical analysis.
• Richard Falk → the legitimacy of counter-terrorism depends on upholding global justice and due process and avoiding state-sponsored excesses, lest the values of civilisation be eroded in the effort to protect them.

“Terrorism is a global scourge that requires a global response.”

Kofi Annan