15,358 research outputs found
Modeling Terrorist Radicalization
Recent high-profile terrorism arrests and litigation in New York, Colorado, and Detroit have brought public attention to the question of how the government should respond to the possibility of domestic-origin terrorism linked to al Qaeda. This symposium essay identifies and discussing one emerging approach in the United States and Europe which attends to the process of terrorist “radicalization.” States on both sides of the Atlantic are investing increasingly in developing an epistemology of terrorist violence. The results have implications for how policing resources are allocated, whether privacy rights are respected, and how religious liberty may be exercised. This essay traces the development of state discourses on “radicalization” in the United States and the United Kingdom. It argues that understanding this new “radicalization” discourse entails attention to interactions between nations and between the federal government and states as well as to the political economy of counter-terrorism
Framing the UK’s counter-terrorism policy within the context of a wicked problem
Terrorist attacks can be seen as the ultimate wicked problem. After 9/11, terrorists moved
from so-called ‘spectacular’ events to relatively low-intensity attacks against individuals and
groups. The emergence of what has become known as the ‘home-grown’ terrorist has added a
further dimension to the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem. This paper considers the UK’s
CONTEST and PREVENT strategies as a policy response to the threats from terrorism
and the impact that the policies themselves can have on the radicalization of individuals.
The author highlights some of the limitations of the PREVENT strand of the overall
strategy and the constraints that are imposed on government policies by failing to take a
holistic perspective on the nature of the problem
Nato - EU Collaboration on Hybrid Threats: Cooperation Out of Necessity with Potential Consequences on International Legal Framework
This article analyzes the current state of collaboration between NATO and the EU, with particular reference to the hybrid conflict sector. There has always existed a close relationship of interdependence between the two organizations. In 2016, this interdependence experienced a collaborative surge with the signing of a joint declaration at the Warsaw Summit. Since then,NATO and the European Union have actively collaborated in various sectors, including hybrid warfare. In the future, both organizations will need to improve the exchange of information and intelligence collaboration. However, this analysis aims to point out that NATO and the EU, if they wish to limit the scope of their opponents’ manoeuvrability, since hybrid conflict tends to develop below the threshold of what is generally accepted as the definition of armed conflict, will have to work together to outline a new legal framework that redefines the definition of armed conflict
'All radicalisation is local': the genesis and drawbacks of an elusive concept
The concept of ‘radicalisation’ is now firmly entrenched at the heart of European and global counterterrorism. But 12 years after its introduction, it remains ill-defined, complex and controversial. It is thus time to assess its added value
Hybrid threats in the context of european security: report of the international conference organized at the National Defence Institute (IDN) on 18 May 2021 under the framework of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
State opinio juris and international humanitarian law pluralism
International humanitarian law has developed through a pluralistic process. Its history reveals a pattern of rough proportionality between State opinio juris and non-State expressions of law. These diverse sources have maintained a respectable yet realistic balance between humanity and military necessity. However, current IHL dialogue presents a stark contrast to the vibrant and pluralistic exchanges of the past. The substantive input of non-State actors such as non-governmental organizations, tribunals, and scholars far outpaces the work of States. Parity of input, especially in quantitative terms, is surely too much to demand and surely not necessary given the special status of State opinio juris. However, States’ legal agencies and agents should be equipped, organized, and re-empowered to participate actively in the interpretation and development of IHL. This article, extracted from a larger work, argues that reinvigorating opinio juris would reestablish the pluralistic IHL dialogue that formerly tested, updated, and enriched the balance between military necessity and humanity
United in Ambiguity? EU and NATO Approaches to Hybrid Warfare and Hybrid Threats. EU Diplomacy Paper 05/2017
‘Hybrid warfare’, sometimes known as ‘hybrid threats’, became a trendy buzzword in
recent years, used to describe a panoply of seemingly different threats. While neither
the European Union (EU) nor the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) appear to
have a clear definition of this term, both organisations are taking steps to ‘counter
hybrid’. This paper explores why this terminology has been adopted by both
organisations and seeks to understand how this semantic choice influenced their
respective policy responses as well as their cooperation. By analysing what hybrid
means and which actors are designated with this label, I show that both NATO and
the EU used hybrid to describe their vulnerability to a rapidly changing strategic
environment. Although no final definition of hybrid has materialised, the term has
allowed for increased informal and formal NATO-EU cooperation
- …