INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

COURSE: BA HONS. POLITICAL SCIENCE

SUBJECT: GLOBAL POLITICS

SUBMITTED TO: Mr. SUJIT THAKUR

MADE BY:

ISHITA SINGH -18/86003

AKANCHA MISHRA -18/86032
SABHYA BHALLA -18/86033
CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF TERRORISM
TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
CAUSES LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
IMPACTS/EFFECTSOF DISRUPTING PEACE AND
SECURITY
GLOBALISATION AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
THEORETICAL INTERPRETATIONS ON TERRORISM
1. Realism and Terrorism
2. Just War Theory
3. Liberalism and terrorism
4. Marxist interpretations
HARBOURING PEACE AND TERRORISM CONTROL

TERRORISM: AN INTRODUCTION
For the last thirty years, the threat of terrorism has been
multiplied manifold. The terrorist acts have become more
dangerous with the advancement of technology. Only the little
part of the world remained untouched and unharmed by the
contemporary beckon of terrorism.
1 Terrorism involves violence against public, with a political or
religious desire. Terrorist acts are organized so as to attract
large attention. Terrorists use acts of violence for frightening
the group of peoples or pressuring the Government to do or not
do something. Many Countries give aid and dangerous weapons
to the terrorist groups in order to weaken the other country. In
most cases, terrorism is a bludgeon of small groups, fighting
against governments that are more well-known and
betterarmed.
2 Terrorism is now an international phenomenon. Now the
world is facing so many groups of terrorists. The main reason of
emergence of terrorism has been exploitation of weaker and
poor section of the society by the rich and powerful. Their
peaceful attempt to non-violent protest was unsuccessful to
give any result. Hence, they opted to use violence to yield the
results. Such acts of violence are also called terrorist activities.
There are many other reasons for terrorism like religion,
language or to set up a new pattern of government.
3 Terrorism is not new and this term is being used for the
centuries but it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has
been defined, variously, as a tactic and strategy, a crime and a
holy duty, as a justified reaction to oppression and exploitation
of weaker section of society. As an uneven form of conflict, to
suppress the terrorism, States use coercive powers including
military action. In some cases, terrorism has been used as a
means to carry on a conflict without showing to opposite the
nature of the threat. They mistakenly take terrorism as normal
criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism
has become increasingly common among those pursuing
extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity,
terrorism can be a nebulous concept.
Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, and
originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by
the French government during the 1793– 1794 Reign of terror.
The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb
terre meaning "I frighten"
In 1994, the United nations General Assembly has continually
condemned terrorist acts using the following political depiction
of terrorism: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a
state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or
particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a
political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or
any other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.

The History of International Terrorism

Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and
practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century
AD Sicarii Zealots which assassinated collaborators with Roman
rule in the province of Judea, was in fact terrorist.
The first use in English of the term 'terrorism' occurred during
the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, when the Jacobins, who
ruled the revolutionary state, employed violence, including
mass executions by guillotine, to compel obedience to the state
and intimidate regime enemies. The association of the term
only with state violence and intimidation lasted until the mid-
19th century, when it began to be associated with non-
governmental groups. Anarchism, often in league with
rising nationalism and anti-monarchism, was the most
prominent ideology linked with terrorism. Near the end of the
19th century, anarchist groups or individuals committed
assassinations of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President. In the
latter half of the 19th century, terror was adopted in western
Europe, Russia, and the United States by adherents
of anarchism, who believed that the best way to effect
revolutionary political and social change was to assassinate
persons in positions of power. From 1865 to 1905 a number of
kings, presidents, prime ministers, and other government
officials were killed by anarchists’ guns or bombs.
In the 20th century, terrorism continued to be associated with a
vast array of anarchist, socialist, fascist and nationalist groups,
many of them engaged in 'third world' anti-colonial struggles.
Some scholars also labelled as terrorist the systematic internal
violence and intimidation practiced by states such as
the Stalinist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The 20th century
witnessed great changes in the use and practice of terror. It
became the hallmark of a number of political movements
stretching from the extreme right to the extreme left of the
political spectrum. Technological advances, such as automatic
weapons and compact, electrically detonated explosives, gave
terrorists a new mobility and lethality, and the growth of air
travel provided new methods and opportunities. Terrorism was
virtually an official policy in totalitarian states such as those of
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union
under Stalin. In these states arrest, imprisonment, torture, and
execution were carried out without legal guidance or restraints
to create a climate of fear and to encourage adherence to the
national ideology and the declared economic, social, and
political goals of the state.
Terror has been used by one or both sides in anticolonial
conflicts, in disputes between different national groups over
possession of a contested homeland (e.g., that between
Palestinians and Israelis), in conflicts between different
religious denominations (e.g., that between Roman
Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland), and in internal
conflicts between revolutionary forces and established
governments (e.g., those within the successor states of the
former Yugoslavia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nicaragua, El
Salvador, and Peru).
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries some of the most
extreme and destructive organizations that engaged in
terrorism possessed
a fundamentalist religious ideology (e.g., Hamas and al-Qaeda
In the latter half of the 20th century the most prominent groups
using terrorist tactics were the Red Army Faction, the Japanese
Red Army, the Red Brigades, the Puerto Rican FALN, Fatah and
other groups related to the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), the Shining Path, and the Liberation Tigers.
The most prominent groups in the early 21st century were al-
Qaeda, the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, and ISIL.
The deadliest terrorist strikes to date were the September 11
attacks (2001), in which suicide terrorists associated with al-
Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes, crashing two of
them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in
New York City and the third into the Pentagon building near
Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. The crashes destroyed much of the World Trade
Center complex and a large portion of one side of the Pentagon
and killed more than 3,000 people. Terrorism appears to be an
enduring feature of political life. Even prior to the September
11 attacks, there was widespread concern that terrorists might
escalate their destructive power to vastly greater proportions
by using weapons of mass destruction—
including nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—as did the
Japanese doomsday cult AUM Shinrikyo, which released nerve
gas into a Tokyo subway in 1995.

Types of terrorism
Introduction
Terrorism has been defined, differently, by scholars, lawmakers
and security professionals. The scholars of USA, started to
differentiate the types of terrorism in the year 1970. After a
decade, many international and domestic terrorist groups
bloomed. At that time, the modern terrorist groups started to
utilize different ways of terrorist acts like bombing, hijacking,
assassination and diplomatic kidnapping to fulfill their goals
and for the first time, they were noticed as real threats to
Western Countries, in the eyes of researchers, politicians, laws
enforcement authorities and law makers. They started to
differentiate the types of terrorism in to counter it.

1. Bioterrorism
In this type of terrorism, the biological toxins are used to hurt
and frighten innocent citizens, in the name of a political or
other cause. The U.S. Center for Disease Control has
categorized the viruses, bacteria and toxins that could be used
in an attack.
 2. Cyber terrorism:
In this type of terrorism, the terrorists utilize information
technology to affect public at large and get attention to their
aim. This may mean that they use information technology, like
telecommunications, computers and internet, as a tool to
organize a conventional attack. In cyber terrorism, by using
information technology would radically interrupt the services
which are connected with internet. For example, cyber
terrorists can hack into networks housing for getting critical
financial information or disable networked emergency systems.
Cyber terrorism is a use of internet for terrorist activities like,
large-scale disruption of computer networks, especially
computers attached to the Internet, by the means of computer
viruses.

3. Eco terrorism:
Eco terrorism is new type of terrorism, using violence for
interest of environment. For example, the environmental
extremists damage property of industries to save the animals
and natural environment. These industries include logging
companies, fur companies and animal research laboratories

4. Nuclear terrorism:
Nuclear terrorism means different type of use of nuclear
material by the terrorists. It includes attacking nuclear facilities,
preparing nuclear weapons or purchasing nuclear weapons, or
finding ways to scatter radioactive materials. A terrorist assault
on a nuclear research centre or nuclear power plant can be
cause of the release of nuclear material. The consequences of
an attack on a nuclear research centre or nuclear power plant
could equal or exceed the effects of the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster in USSR, which led to 30 deaths from radiation
sickness, 1800 cases of childhood thyroid cancer, the
evacuation of one Lakhs persons and the radioactive
contamination of huge area of land in numerous countries
 5. Political terrorism:
Political terrorism means use of violence in order to create fear
in the civilians for political purpose. The terrorist groups usually
use violence to overthrow or destabilize the government but in
some cases, the dictatorial governments also use terror to
maintain their power or to suppress their opponents
 Official or state terrorism: It refers to Countries whose
rules are rest upon terror and tyranny which is similar
to terrorism. It may also be referred to as Structural
Terrorism referred as terrorist acts executed or
supported by governments for their political objectives
or as their foreign policy.

 Right-wing terrorism: This type of terrorism is inspired

by ideologies and beliefs like communism, fascism,
Nazism, Racism, chauvinism and opposition to
immigration. The contemporary right wing terrorism
first came into sight in Europe after the division of the
Soviet Union, in the year 1980. The aim of Right wing
terrorists to overthrow government and to establish a
nationalist or fascist government. The persons include
in this type of terrorism are fascist skinheads,
hooligans, youth sympathizers and intellectuals who
deem that the government must send foreigners, out of
country, for protecting its original citizens. In this type
of terrorism, the terrorists fight with the liberal
government in order to preserve their tradition. Right
Wing terrorists are racially motivated and they aim to
suppress minorities within the country. There are so
many groups of this type are present in U.S.A, India,
Germany, Russia, and other countries. Left-wing
terrorism (also called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or
revolutionary terrorism) In this type of terrorism, the
terrorists want to remove the capitalist government and
to establish communist or socialist based government.
Left-wing extremists, universally known as Maoists and
Naxalites. They want to attack the established system
in order to remove class distinction. These types of
 terrorists are still in existence, in some countries but
now they are not as effective as they were during the
Cold War.

 State terrorism: In this type of terrorism, the act of

violence is being conducted by Nation against the other
nation or against its own citizens. This type of terrorism
is different from state sponsored terrorism, in which
nation sponsors terrorist groups who holding power in a
country. The state terrorism is the systematic use of
terror by a government in order to control its citizens.
The 1793 French Revolution, in which thousands of
peoples had executed, is usually mentioned as the first
illustration of state terrorism. In history, every dictator
has utilized this type of terrorism in order to control his
population. The more contemporary example is, use of
violence against the Kurds by Saddam Hussein or the
suppression of democratic protestors in Syria.

6. Religious terrorism:
In this type of terrorism, the terrorist groups perform
terrorist activities, on the basis of faith oriented tenets.
From centuries, the terrorist acts have been performed on
religious basis with a view to spread or enforce a system
of belief, or opinion of their religion on others. In this type
of terrorism, does not necessarily define a specific
religious view, but, usually defines the view of groups of
people or interpretation of teachings that belief.

7. Separatist Terrorism:
In this type of terrorism, the terrorist groups want to
divide the country for establishing a new nation. This kind
of terrorism is basically of minorities, within a nation that
desire their own state, generally, due to discrimination
from the majority of citizens or government. The most
famous examples are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, ETA
Basque separatists in Spain, the Kurdish PKK in Turkey,
 the Chechen terrorists in Chechnya, and the Quebec
Liberation Front in Canada.

Causes of Terrorism
People are not born terrorists. Therefore, it is an significant
point that the terrorism is a long process and a political
strategy selected from among a range of other options to
achieve their goals.27 The process of terrorism has an historical
background, which involves people who think that the political
system is treating them harshly.

1. Ethno-nationalism
The desire of group of persons in the society to separate
from the existing government and to formation of their
new nation can cause the creation of terrorist
organizations. In the 20th century, many nations gained
freedom from colonial era masters through violence.
However, as Bruce Hoffman points out in “Inside
Terrorism”, that this type of terrorism was in existence
even before the First World War. But the most of these
famous groups, created before and after World War 2nd
and encouraged by the deteriorating of imperial powers.
At present, Hamas is one of the most dangerous ethno-
nationalist groups involving in different types of terrorist
activities like suicide bombings for attacking against Israel
with the objective of creating a separate state i.e.
Palestinian. Chechen terrorist organizations are also
ethno-nationalists, as they attacks against the citizens and
government of Russia in order to establish their own
nation.29 In India also there are numerous terrorist
groups, who want to create separate nations like in J & K
and in Eastern States of India.

2. Terrorism due to Alienation or Discrimination:

Many groups of peoples came from their home land to
other countries for employment or education and
ultimately settled there. Many times, they face
 discrimination from the original citizens of the countries
where they shifted. These groups may become jaded
towards the society and feel excluded. Due to sentiments
of discrimination and isolation, these groups become more
conservative and start terrorist acts against the original
citizens and government. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, in
USA is the best example of this type of terrorism. The
persons involved in this attack were migrant Muslims, who
went to Germany, from their native nation, for their
education. They felt discriminated in Europe and they
created a terrorist group with other conservative Muslims
and attacked in USA on 11- 09-2001. Due to
discrimination, they became more jaded with the society.

3. Religion:
Religion is treated to be a significant cause of terrorism.
Although, religion is not the major cause for terrorism but
it plays an important role in terrorism, in entire world. As
Hoffman gave example of religious terrorism in his book
“Inside Terrorism” that Thugs of ancient India killed the
innocent peoples to terrorize in the name of the God Kali
and Jewish Zealots cut the throats of Romans in public to
combat their occupation of Israel. Religion has long been a
factor of terrorism. Today, religion has been mainly
attributed to Islamic fundamentalism as a part of
terrorism. In India also, religion is main reason of
terrorism. The maximum number of terrorist incidents and
deaths of innocent civilians have occurred due to religious
terrorism. In Punjab, some Sikh groups chose terrorism to
create an independent state called Khalistan based on
Sikh religion. In J&K, Muslims belonging to different
organisations chose to terrorism for creation of
independent Muslim nation and for this purpose, they
attack on innocent public

4. Socio-Economic Status:
Terrorism may also be caused due to difference of economic
standards of different countries. Due to economic differences
between the rich countries and poor countries lead to
 humiliations frustrations and victimizations in groups of
persons belonging to poor countries and they make
comparison about their economic conditions with the citizens
of rich countries. The modern media and internet also play a
vital role to create awareness about the opportunities and
resources available in other countries. For example, by
comparing the economic differences between themselves
and the Western countries, enraged the Muslims youths of
underdeveloped countries which increased tension and
frustration. This permitted the terrorist organizations to get
attention and entry to their countries and associate with
them for the purpose of terrorist activities.
5. Political Grievances:
The grievances against a certain political policy or lack of
political participation in states may be of reason to join or form
terrorist groups. The Left and right wing terrorists are the
example of this type of terrorism. It is akin to ethno-nationalist
terrorism, but in this, the demand is not to create new state but
to change the political policy within the nation. 2.4.6 Poverty
and Economic Problems due to Globalisation33: The more
important factor of terrorism is disparity in the distribution of
resources. This is a main cause of terrorism. Approximately,
15% of the world population utilizes 85% of the total resources.
UN statistics show that the situation is more deteriorate in the
developing countries as compare to last 30 years ago. In
underdeveloped countries, a small group of peoples have
enriched themselves. So it is also one of the reasons that the
wealthier countries are constantly exposed to terrorist attacks
by a small group representing people from the underdeveloped
countries. In India, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa
and Bihar are prime examples of terrorism due to economic
causes. Where unemployment, exploitation of landless by land
owners and absence of land reforms, etc., are main causes of
terrorism.
6. Anti - Democracy:
The democratic government represents the people and
provides political means to voice against grievances, where
 terrorism should not have place but Some Scholars and
experts say that the democracy is facilitator or instigator for
terrorism because of its openness. Few experts treat this
openness is a big flaw of the system which is also reason of
terrorism. They think that due to this openness, terrorists get
publicity of their cause in the absence of strong censorship.
2.4.8 The Accidental Guerrilla34: Lastly, a theory
7. “accidental guerrilla”:
As put forth by David Kilcullen. Kilcullen describes it as “A
terrorist organization moves into an area with poor government
or that is conflict ridden (he uses Al Qaeda specifically), then
uses this safe haven to spread their ideologies to other areas
and as a base to carry out violent acts.”

Impact /Effects of International terrorism

International terrorism has negatively affected collective state

effort in maintaining international peace and security especially
from 2000 to 2010. The effects of terrorism has been
categorised into two major areas:
 The Effects of Terrorism on Economic Security:
The Effects of Terrorism on Economic Security includes the
reduction of FDI, reduced capital inflows, stalls stock markets,
shifts investment both capital and labour. It ushers in higher
uncertainty thus reducing confidence among potential
investors. The state shifts its priority from projects designed for
growth to higher demand for security and once security is given
higher priority, transport sector suffers especially dealing with
cross border. Besides industry will act below capacity or forced
to close due to the lack of labour.
 The Effects of Terrorism on Individual Security:
The research study explained security not only to mean
insulated from physical harm but also from environmental
security, food security, community security, economic security
and even health security among other securities. The
continuous advancement in technology has led to the
emergence of cyber-terrorism, Narco-terrorism, biological
terrorism and even nuclear terrorism. These are designed to
inflict pain and insecurity upon the citizens of a government
which will then fail to protect its citizens. The Mumbai attacks,
Black September, 9/11, bombing of the WTC in 1993, hostage
taking and kidnapping have all caused human insecurity.
These problems are very difficult to mitigate given that the
states are driven by their individual interests rather than
collective efforts. The UN has tried to curb terrorism through
pacifist tract of dispute settlements but this has been very
effective in world forums. These forums are not binding to
terrorist organisations, so whatever recommendations, policies
or actions, the concerned organisations are absent hence they
escape any legal binding status. On the other hand the UN has
no leverage, financial resources and motivation to deter
terrorism. It is ironic that the UN which is supposed to maintain
peace and security has no permanent police force to safeguard
what it stands for. Instead, the “boys and girls” who are
selected to represent this body are mostly egoistic and enjoy
themselves at the expense of providing peace and security. It
can be summarised that the period between 2000 and 2010
has witnessed fragrant gross violation of human rights either by
the state itself against its civilians or the civilians against the
state or state versus another state. It can be dubbed a prime
period for terrorism which took advantage of the world chaos
especially after 9/11 terrorist attacks If the economy is
deteriorating, then many people especially in Africa fail to send
children to Primary School, High School and Universities. People
will be migrating; some will lose their infrastructure and slowly
poverty is witnessed. Somalia is a true case. Individual security
allows children to find better educational facility. But terrorism
seeks to break all that. In turn, the nation as a whole will not
function properly.
Global Terrorism Index ,2019
According to the global terrorism index ,2019 ,produced by
Institute of Economics and Peace, top 5 countries that are worst
affected by terrorism are as follows:-
1 – Afghanistan
After a couple of years in which things seemed to be
stabilizing, the situation in Afghanistan sharply deteriorated in
2018. Last year there were 1,443 terrorist incidents and a 59%
increase in deaths to 7,379, alongside 6,514 injuries, making it
the country worst affected by terrorism. The situation has
worsened to such an extent that Afghanistan accounted for
almost half (46%) of all terrorist-related deaths around the
world in 2018.Overall deaths from terrorism in Afghanistan
have increased by 631% since 2008. Last year, 16 of the 20
worst terrorist attacks around the world happened in
Afghanistan, 12 of them carried out by the Taliban. Also active
was the Khorasan Chapter of Islamic State, particularly in the
east of the country.
2– Iraq
There was a dramatic improvement in terms of the impact of
terrorism in Iraq last year. The number of deaths fell by 75% in
2018, as Islamic State continued to be pushed back by the
forces of the Iraqi government and other international actors.
There was also a fall in the number of terrorist incidents, from
1,956 in 2017 to 1,131 last year, and the lethality of attacks fell
from 2.2 deaths per attack in 2017 to 0.9 per attack in
2018.While things have improved substantially, Iraq remains a
dangerous country, with 1,054 deaths and 1,723 injuries at the
hands of terrorists in 2018. However, the improvements have
meant that, for the first time since 2003, Iraq is no longer the
worst country in the world for terrorism. In the longer-term the
threat from terrorism remains high and analysts warn there is
still the chance of a revival of Islamic State, or something
worse.
3– Nigeria
Nigeria accounted for 13% of all terrorist-related deaths
globally in 2018, with a 33% rise in the number of fatalities
compared to the year before – that translates into 2,040 deaths
and 772 injuries from the 562 terrorist incidents. Despite that
rise, the total number of deaths was still 72% below the peak in
2014.The deadliest group, Boko Haram, continues to be put
under pressure by a multinational task force set up by the
government of Nigeria with assistance from Cameroon, Chad
and Niger and, as a result, it was responsible for fewer deaths
last year than the year before. However, the danger from other
groups is rising. The IEP says the increase in deaths across the
country in 2018 was a result of extremist Fulani groups who
have become more active and were responsible for 1,158
deaths last year (compared to 589 for Boko Haram). Between
them, Boko Haram and the various Fulani groups accounted for
78% of attacks and 86% of terrorist deaths last year.
4– Syria
While war is still raging across many parts of the country, the
fighting has become less intense in many areas, contributing to
a 40% decline in terrorist-related deaths last year to 662.
Alongside that, there were 725 injuries from the 131 terrorist
incidents. Aleppo was the worth affected part of the country,
followed by Idlib, the capital Damascus and Deir es-Zour in the
east.The fall in deaths is in part a result of the largely
successful campaign against Islamic State – last year the group
was responsible for the lowest number of deaths since 2013.
However, Islamic State remains the most lethal group in the
country. It, along with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and
Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, were still responsible for 77% of terrorist
deaths last year.
5 – Pakistan
Terrorism activity in Pakistan has been falling for the past five
years, but it still remains one of the five deadliest countries in
the world for violence by non-state groups. Last year 537
people were killed and 1,016 injured in 366 incidents. Those
figures represent an improvement of 81% in terms of the
number of deaths and a fall of 77% in terms of incidents since
2013, when terrorism was at its worst in the country.The
deadliest group is the Khorasan Chapter of Islamic State, which
accounted for 251 of the deaths last year. It was followed by
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan which killed 151 people. Another
group which had been very active in the past, Lashkar-e-
Jhangvi, was relatively quiet last year, carrying out just two
attacks and killing six people.

Globalisation as a facilitator of terrorism

 Globalization facilitating terrorism
Cronin (2003) thinks the spread of recent years of terrorism
both within the state and outside the borders comes not only as
a result of globalization but also with its help. Cronin also
mentions that acts of terrorism do not come as a result of
domestic factors, but rather as a result of foreign factors.
Cronin (2003) argues that globalization includes a number of
penetrating mechanisms that have been exploited by terrorist
networks. Often, the internet has been identified as a useful
tool to promote various terror-based ideas. Since the internet is
a fully anonymous forum, it provides users with its use for
establishing communication networks (Goodman, Kirk & Kirk,
2007). Various terrorist organizations as a cause of increased
use of the Internet have increased the number of terrorist
attacks planned. For these reasons, it is thought that terrorism,
especially the international one, is facilitated by the use of the
internet that is part of today's globalization. Zimmerman also
argues that the ease of transport and transfer of money, among
other things, has affected these terrorist groups to exercise
their activity and to benefit from resources. Information
technologies have enabled terrorist groups to reach a peak of
their malevolent activities. By using these technologies, they
can now easily coordinate the attacks they plan, but they
can also deceive people, recruit them and make them part of
their attacks and activities. So, they are already using
technology to promote the causes they advocate that have
essentially violence and terror (Heine & Thakur, 2011). The use
of technology has given individuals / groups access to the
outside world. Technology has affected communication among
people to grow (Goodman, Kirk & Kirk, 2007). Increasing
inequality across the globe and increasing the gap between
the poor and the rich is caused by globalization. This is
emphasized by Nassar (2005). The number of people with
economic difficulties has increased. Everywhere you can
see people whose economy come and lower. On the other
hand there are people who possess very good results. Those
who have economic problems are easier to become part of
terrorist organizations. Highly developed globalization and high
economic downturn have led to increased violence and
frustration. globalization often exacerbates the degree of
economic and social inequality and polarization within certain
countries. In the Middle East, in the Arab countries, which
are considered to be politically weak and economically
weak, which have not been part of globalization, have fallen
prey to these groups which have attempted to spread their
influence through terrorist violence. Therefore, it has been easy
for these weak areas to be affected by terrorist organizations,
as mentioned earlier, people in these areas are tired of
economic inefficiencies and choose to become part of these
dangerous groups.
Globalization is often associated with the western culture,
enabling one country's culture to be implemented in other
countries. This can make that some individuals who do not
share the same thoughts or traditions with this culture to
oppose it (Zimmermann, 2011). In addition, globalization
also involves the growth of consumerism and market
capitalism, seen as an attack on less privileged populations of
conservative cultures, because they are interrupted by the
major changes brought about by the forces of globalization
or is unhappy with the unequal distribution of benefits
(Cronin, 2003). Globalization is often regarded as a force
that harms the habits, languages, and religions of the
respective countries. Many people think
hat it destroys problems in the places where they live. As a
reason to fight against this globalization they think will
destroy their traditions and cultures, they choose to fight
it forcefully and forcefully.
  The link between globalization and terrorism
It can be said that globalization affects a lot in the changes that
occur in market relations, bringing consequences to national
governments and weakening the state. Globalization is
responsible for an economic and social inequality, in other
words, is a cause for social polarization within the country
(Zimmermann, 2011). It is already known that underdeveloped
countries can not be measured with large economies and
developed countries. These two paradoxes can not compete
against each other. This leads precisely to the space between
the rich and the poor, that can serve as the origin of anger and
nervousness of those who do not have the opposite of what
they have (Murphy, 2002). This dissatisfaction may adversely
affect these people (Helton & Zagorcheva, 2002), and may
encourage them to use terrorism as a way to express their
anger. Globalization also brings inequality and through a
state that no longer has the capacity to protect groups that are
affected by the global economic challenges facing the world
(Zimmermann, 2011). For these reasons, it can be said that
the state is unable to meet the basic economic conditions
for the citizens of his country. Economic and social problems,
such as poverty, slow economic growth and may have an
impact on terrorism.
Globalization has also caused many values, traditions to be
changed through new information technologies such as
internet, mobile phones, and so on. Changes in tradition also
come in the way the new culture is perceived. A particular case
of change in value is the emergence and spread of supreme
values, which has a major impact on the growth of
incentives for international terrorism
Another effect of globalization is the displacement of
people. This migration process causes the creation of minority
groups and contributes to the change of values. These minority
groups also lead to the weakening of the state's position, which
is the cause of terrorism towards another country and
contributes to the reduction of social and economic
equality
Western world economies are aimed at privatizing industries to
provide businesses with competitive individuals. In this
way, terrorist organizations have created the impression
that capitalist economies are trying to exert control and
pressure on the world market and take control of the
economies of underdeveloped countries (Baylis, Smith and
Owens, 2014). What can be said is that the number of these
terrorist groups has increased as a result of the ideologies
that major terrorist organizations have spread.

THEORETICAL INTERPRETATIONS TO
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Realism and International Terrorism

Realism as a western mainstream theory has dominated

intellectual discourse on terrorism for more than four decades.
The theory argues that the state is the key actor or primary
agents in international politics and there is no actor above the
state. Second, governments are engaged in a constant effort to
ensure the survival of their respective states. Third, states
selfishly pursue their national interests the most vital being
national security. Generally, the realist believes that states
have the omnipotent legitimacy and brand any challenge to
state authority as illegitimate. In a nutshell, terrorist groups are
regarded as illegitimate non state actors who challenge the
authority. Within the context of international politics, it is
assumed that states would always feel insecure about other
countries, thus, they always use military forces to deter other
states and keep their interests which constitute their core aim
in their foreign policy.
 From a realist perspective, state has a monopoly on the
legitimate use of force and that terrorism is carried out by non-
state actors only. This realist orthodoxy view rejects state
terrorism in international relations, and therefore opted for
military force as a privileged means to an end, and necessary
expedient for preserving power. Since the orthodox realist
approach state terrorism and focuses its attention solely on the
illegal non-state actors terrorizing legitimate state, this reflects
its view on what is terrorism. Prominent Realist scholar like
Bruce Hoffman has defined terrorism as an ‘acts perpetuated
by a sub-national or non-state entity’ (Hoffman 1998). Other
realist scholar like Caleb Carr defines terrorism as ‘warfare
deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of
destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that
the agents of such violence find objectionable’ (Carr, 2002).
Walter Laqueur is described terrorism as deadly
violence perpetrated by unidentified amorphous non-state
groups, who often bear no relation to their country of origin and
who claim no responsibility for their actions. They intend to kill
as many people as possible, predominantly non-combatants
and their blind lethal violence is typified by hate, aggression
and anger. On the basis of these definitions, the occurrence of
September 11th bombing gives Oliver Richmond (2003) the
needed impetus to argue that terrorism is carried out by violent
non-state actors, sometimes funded by transnational criminal
networks and renegade states, applying guerrilla warfare and
acts of terror for secessionist or irredentist aims, motivated by
ideological, political, economic, linguistic, and cultural reasons,
or purely for profit. This involves complex transnational
networks, and a particularistic ideology, perhaps free-riding on
the international norms of self-determination and sovereignty.

These realist conceptions of terrorism in the wake and

aftermath of the September 11th encourage the western
politicians, mainstream media and policy makers especially the
United States Government to define terrorism in a narrow and
biased way as a ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub national
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an
audience’ (Pillar, 2001). Thus, provide policy tools to categorise
certain group as terrorists and incorporate them into their
terrorist database, and justifications for the so-called American
and British war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and
Yemen, which uses dangerous counter terrorist tactics, military
intervention, and regime change against groups and
governments that oppose its interest in the developing
countries; and to provide tactic support and assistance to
authoritarian regimes (allies) of Bahrain, Israel and Saudi
Arabia.

The use of Realist labels by the Western states to any group or

organisation as ‘terrorist’ was ostensibly crafted to serve
particular interests in today’s global power relations—to sustain
and maintain the existing institutional and power-relational
status quo by confronting any destabilizing pressures within the
international system.

JUST WAR THEORY

Just War Theory is the basis on which nations seek to legally
and morally justify going to war. Not all nations concern
themselves with such justifications (e.g. Nazi Germany.) The
United States does explicitly recognize Just War Theory as
criteria for engaging in war. Thus, the criteria of Just War
Theory are a primary basis for discussion and debate about US
war actions.
The history of Just War Theory begins in the works of some
important philosophers. Augustine (354-430) provides a
foundation for Just War Theory in Western literature. Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274) codified Augustine's reflections into the
distinct criteria that remain the basis of Just War Theory as it is
used today. The need by a civil society to provide sound
justification for going to war is one of the many practical
influences that Philosophy has on our lives.
There are two traditional categories of requirements for just
wars.
JUS AD BELLUM The conditions required for justly going to war;
the right to go to war.
1. JUST AUTHORITY: The first condition in Just War Theory is
Just Authority, also known as Competent Authority. A just war
must be initiated by a political authority within a political
system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (i.e.
Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (i.e. the 1968
US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations
of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly,
we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within
a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just
war must be initiated by a political authority within a political
system that allows distinctions of justice.
2. JUST CAUSE: This is the central condition for many
discussions over the justification of a war. If a Just Cause cannot
be shown, many people will reject the call to war. Now, almost
all nations and leaders who wage war claim to do so on the
basis of a Just Cause. Iraq, for instance, explicitly claimed to
have a Just Cause in its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It is not
enough to simply claim to have a Just Cause. We must be able
to show that some wrong has been committed by one nation
for which war is the proper redress by another. Unprovoked
aggression, such as an invasion, fits clearly within the criteria of
a Just Cause. Few would deny a nation the right to defend itself
against unprovoked attack. The defence of an ally against an
aggressor is also generally considered a clear Just Cause.
3. JUST INTENTION: The Just Intention (or Right Intention)
condition in Just War Theory sets a limit to the extent of the
war. Even given a Just Authority and a Just cause, it is possible
for a warring state to go beyond the bounds of its justification.
In the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, the coalition forces led by
the US stopped short of invading and occupying Baghdad. In
answer to the criticisms of this action, US military leaders
pointed out that the Just Cause and sole objective of the war
was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Having achieved
that objective, the limit of the justification for prosecution of the
war had been reached and a ceasefire was negotiated. Calls to
occupy Iraq, assassinate Saddam Hussein, or use nuclear
weapons clearly exceeded the authority of the US and UN
action. A just war is limited to the pursuit of the avowed just
cause. A just war is limited to the pursuit and securing of the
Just Cause.
4. LAST RESORT: War is morally permissible only when no
other means to achieving the Just Cause is possible. This means
that the nation considering war has exhausted all potential
solutions, including political and diplomatic. This condition
seems to mitigate against the national pride that sometimes
leads to war as the resort of choice. A nation may have to
compromise and negotiate to win solution short of war. But at
least, the condition of last resort requires that political and
diplomatic approaches to a solution have been fully attempted.
JUS IN BELLO The conditions required for the just conduct of
war; the right conduct in war. The criteria provide standards of
conduct for nations, armies, and individual soldiers at war.
Some people have the idea that in war, anything goes; "all's
fair in love and war." But this is never the case in any war.
Armies maintain some standards of lawful vs. criminal
behaviour. Armies have police, prisons, and courts. It is true
that some armies show no legal or moral restraint when it
comes to the treatment of the enemy (some are hostile to their
own populations), but those are militaries that act contrary to
the Just War criteria and usually in violation the international
rule of law. Such stares or individuals are often held
accountable by domestic or international law. There are,
however, many cases where war crimes are not prosecuted or
redressed. Just War Theory is a philosophical idea and can be
used as the basis of a legal process. We are using the criteria to
judge cases of war acts. Here are three of the key criteria for
just (or justifiable) behaviour in war:
1. PROPORTIONALITY. The proportionality of the use of force
in a war. The degree of allowable force used in the war must be
measured against the force required to correct the Just cause
and limited by Just Intention (see Jus Ad Bellum).
2. DISCRIMINATION. The combatants discriminate between
combatants and non-combatants. Innocent, non-military people
should never be made the target of attacks.
3. RESPONSIBILITY. A country is not responsible for
unexpected side effects of its military activity as long as the
following three conditions are met:
(a) The action must carry the intention to produce good
consequences.
(b) The bad effects were not intended.
(c) The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.
How these criteria are to be interpreted and fulfilled is an issue
of ongoing discussion among philosophers, politicians, and
military planners. In order for a civil society to maintain itself
such that the commission of unjust wars is preventable, there
must be and critical.

LIBERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Trailing behind realism is the liberal perspective. Liberalism
examines how nations can coexist within a stable and ordered
international system, and reject war as an inevitable product of
international relations. Liberalism believes that non-state actors
are important players in International relations and must be
considered along with the state actors. While states maybe
considered sovereign, in reality other actors such as multi-
national corporations, terrorist groups, non-governmental
organizations, and other transnational actors are all important
and relevant (Walt, 1998). Liberalism believes that shared and
increased economic interest and cooperation between states
will foster economic interdependence and reduce the likelihood
of conflict.The liberal approach therefore treats terrorists as
criminals that threaten the limits in which international politics
can become stable and peaceful (Fiala, 2002). In other words,
terrorists do not want to foster economic and security
cooperation and do not wish to create of world of economic
interdependence. For liberals, terrorists would be criminals
committing criminal acts, not central actors in the arena of
international relations (Parker, 2003).
Despite the seeming difference between Liberalism and
Realism, both approaches focus more on the dominance of
states’ interest within the international system and how to
achieve advantages without minding whose ox is gored in the
global order. Both theories share the view that terrorism are
carried out by non-state actors only. Both theories are part of
the traditional orthodox approach that have been influenced by
mainstream social sciences, which posits that there is
independent existence to social phenomenon and the meaning
they elicit .The argument of orthodox theorists is that ‘a
contextual consideration is not related to socio-political actors
and contexts’. This ontological position which was termed
objectivism followed the Emile Durkheim’s positivistic idea of
social fact that believe that terrorists will exist ‘out there’ no
matter what the historical context may be.
International terrorism and clash of civilizations -- Huntington
Huntington referred to a ‘clash of civilizations’ revealing itself in
international terrorism, particularly in the clash between the
Islamic civilization and the West. The authors confront his
hypotheses with ones derived from the strategic logic of
international terrorism. They predict more terrorism against
nationals from countries whose governments support the
government of the terrorists’ home country. Like Huntington,
they also predict excessive terrorism on Western targets, not
because of inter-civilizational conflict per se, but because of the
strategic value of Western targets. Contra Huntington, their
theory does not suggest that Islamic civilization groups commit
more terrorist acts against nationals from other civilizations in
general, nor a general increase in inter-civilizational terrorism
after the Cold War. The empirical analysis – based on
estimations in a directed dyadic country sample, 1969–2005 –
broadly supports their theory. In particular, there is not
significantly more terrorism from the Islamic against other
civilizations in general, nor a structural break in the pattern of
international terrorism after the Cold War
MARXISM AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
IT is argued that Marx and Engels considered violence only as
an instrument of secondary importance and desirable in so far
as there is no other alternative to change the system. It is
further contended that while they, in the course of years,
adopted a more moderate position regarding the use of
violence, Lenin's viewpoint radicalized as the possibility of a
revolution in Russia became real. As years went by Lenin
affirmed not only the use of violence but also the resort to
terrorist activities. Unlike Marx and Engels he became an
ardent supporter of all types of terror.
Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and other
leading Bolshevik ideologists recognized mass terror as a
necessary weapon during the dictatorship of proletariat and the
resulting class struggle. In his The Proletarian Revolution and
the Renegade K. Kautsky (1918), Lenin wrote: "One cannot hide
the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a
"condition", one so disagreeable to renegades [such as
Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another
the "fundamental feature" of the concept of dictatorship of the
proletariat is revolutionary violence".
The Bolsheviks engaged in a form of social determinism that
was hostile to bourgeoisie and wealthier classes. Martin Latsis,
one of the Soviet leaders directing the Cheka, stated his
intentions for those classes who were considered reactionary
and incapable of being re-educated.
On the other hand, they opposed individual terror, which has
been used earlier by the People's Will organization. According
to Trotsky: "The damaging of machines by workers, for
example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing
of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death
threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in
hand, against a government minister—all these are terrorist
acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has
an idea of the true nature of international Social Democracy
ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism
and does so in the most irreconcilable way".
Many later Marxists, in particular Karl Kautsky, criticized
Bolshevik leaders for terrorism tactics. He stated that "among
the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible,
Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of
freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale
execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent
of all
Left-wing terrorism or far-left terrorism (sometimes
called Marxist–Leninist terrorism or revolutionary/left-wing
terrorism) is terrorism meant to overthrow capitalist
systems and replace them with Marxist–
Leninist or socialist societies. Left-wing terrorism also occurs
within already socialist states as activism against the current
ruling government. It has taken vivid manifestations across the
world and presented diverging dynamics and relationships with
national governments and political economies.
Most left-wing terrorist groups that had operated in the 1970s
and 1980s disappeared by the mid-1990s. One exception was
the Greek Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N),
which lasted until 2002. Since then, left-wing terrorism has
been minor compared with other forms, and is mostly carried
out by insurgent groups in the developing world.

Peace Resolution
Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in the
absence of hostility and violence. In a social sense, peace is
commonly used to mean a lack of conflict (such as war) and
freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.
Throughout history leaders have used peace making and
diplomacy to establish a certain type of behavioural restraint
that has resulted in the establishment of regional peace or
economic growth through various forms of agreements or
peace treaties. Such behavioural restraint has often resulted in
the reduction of conflicts, greater economic interactivity, and
consequently substantial prosperity.

United States gained power in 1991 after defeating USSR and

became sole superpower. The State had the responsibility of
running the world smoothly. The first purpose of the UN, as
stated in Article 1 of its charter, is the maintenance of
international peace and security. To this end, the organization
is required "to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the
peace, and to bring about by peaceful means … adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might
lead to a breach of the peace." The UN has undertaken this
heavy responsibility with varying levels of success over the
years.

UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE RESOLUTION

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A ,the

"Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that in any cases where
the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity amongst
its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain
international peace and security, the General Assembly shall
consider the matter immediately and may issue any
recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore
international peace and security. If not in session at the time
the General Assembly may meet using the mechanism of the
emergency special session.

The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the "Acheson

Plan"—was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of
Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (the Byelorussian
SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and the
Ukrainian SSR), with 2 abstentions (Argentina and India).
Origin

The Uniting for Peace resolution was initiated by the United

States,and submitted by the "Joint Seven-Powers" in October
1950, as a means of circumventing further Soviet vetoes during
the course of the Korean War (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953). It
was adopted by 52 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.

'Veto Power' in Peace Resolution

It has been argued that with the adoption of the 'Uniting for
Peace' resolution by the General Assembly, and given the
interpretations of the Assembly's powers that became
customary international law as a result, that the Security
Council 'power of veto' problem could be surmounted By
adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, over two-thirds of
UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter,
the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not
prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to
restore international peace and security, in cases where the
UNSC has failed to exercise its 'primary responsibility' for
maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as
being awarded 'final responsibility'—rather than 'secondary
responsibility'—for matters of international peace and security,
by the UN Charter. Various official and semi-official UN reports
make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as
providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC
vetoes.

How to Curb International Terrorism?

Who are the international terrorists?
What are their motives and how do they get their support?
How can we stop them?
The answers to these questions have changed significantly over
the last 25 years. There are dramatically fewer international
terrorist incidents than in the mid-eighties. Many of the groups
that targeted America's interests, friends, and allies have
disappeared. The Soviet bloc, which once provided support to
terrorist groups, no longer exists. Countries that once excused
terrorism now condemn it. This changed international attitude
has led to 12 United Nations conventions targeting terrorist
activity and, more importantly, growing, practical international
cooperation. The terrorist threat is also changing in ways that
make it more dangerous and difficult to counter.

International terrorism once threatened only when we went

outside the country. Today international terrorists attack us on
our own soil.
All the countries should come together at an international
platform and join their hands against terrorism. Given below
are some preventive measure that should be implemented
strictly in all the countries to combat Terrorism.

1)Countering the growing danger of the terrorist threat requires

significantly stepping up government's efforts. The government
must immediately take steps to reinvigorate the collection of
intelligence about terrorists' plans, use all available legal
avenues to disrupt and prosecute terrorist activities and private
sources of support, convince other nations to cease all support
for terrorists, and ensure that federal, state, and local officials
are prepared for attacks that may result in mass casualties.

2) Priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks. The intelligence

and law enforcement communities of all the countries must use
the full scope of their authority to collect intelligence regarding
terrorist plans and methods.

3) U.S., as a sole superpower, must firmly target all states that

support terrorists.

4) Private sources of financial and logistical support for

terrorists must be subjected to the full force and sweep of U.S.
and international laws.

5) A terrorist attack involving a biological agent, deadly

chemicals, or nuclear or radiological material, even if it
succeeds only partially, could profoundly affect the entire
nation. The government must do more to prepare for such an
event.

Above mentioned are some ways by which a Terrorism could be

prevented.