Search results

Istraživanje političkog nasilja, uključujući terorizam, moguće je općenito podijeliti u dvije faze: u prvoj, kvantitativnoj, istraživanja su tražila odgovore na pitanje: tko je što učinio, kada i gdje. Takav se pristup mnogo upotrebljavao u literaturi društvenih nauka. Druga faza vodi k produbljenom istraživanju ljudskog ponašanja postavljajući pitanja o tome zašto određene osobe učestvuju u terorističkim akcijama ili akcijama političkog nasilja. Usprkos činjenici da se uzročnost ne može generalizirati do stupnja u kojem postaje neprimjenjiva, istraživanje uzroka pokazalo se mnogo probitačnijim. Ono omogućava istraživanje problema rješavanja političkog nasilja kroz proces tretiranja njegovih uzroka, umjesto da se orijentira na kažnjavanje zbog njegovih konzekvenci. Osim toga, čini se pomak od deskribiranja i kategoriziranja onoga što se desilo k predviđanju onoga što će se najvjerojatnije dogoditi. Podaci o političkom nasilju koji su već prikupljeni i sistematizirani čine dobar okvir za istraživanje njegovih uzroka. Međutim, zahtjev znanstvene objektivnosti traži oprez kada se analiziraju takvi podaci; informacije često nisu objektivne, a statistika je često nekomparabilna. To je istodobno i jedan indikator da konsensus o tome što je zapravo političko nasilje još nije postignut. Objektivni kriterij za njegovo definiranje često je dopunjen subjektivnim konotacijama, kao što su motivi, težnje i percepcije istraživača i javnosti uopće. Identifikacija uzroka političkog nasilja u posljednje vrijeme privlači mnogo pažnje u literaturi o terorizmu. U osnovi, postoje četiri tipa terorizma determinirana uzrocima. Na prvom je mjestu potrebno uzeti u obzir politički i ideološki terorizam koji je često povezan s pojavom strategije nove ljevice. Drugo, terorizam je također jedan od konzekvenci etničkih i rasnih separatističkih ili emancipatorskih pokreta. Treći je tip karakterističan za aspiracije marginaliziranih društvenih slojeva kao što su studenti na pretrpanim univerzitetima, nezaposleni radnici ili radnici — migranti. Četvrti tip moguće je definirati kao patološki terorizam u koji je moguće svrstati i kriminalne terorističke akcije. Iako terorizam ne može biti objašnjen jednim određenim brojem uzroka, budući da objašnjenje mora računati na veći broj uzroka od četiri spomenute klasifikacije, može to poslužiti za početak identifikacije njegovih uzroka. ; Research on political violence, including terrorism, can broadly be divided into two phases: the first one, quantitative, could be described as seeking answers to questions: who did what, when and how. That one has been extensively dealt with in the current social science literature. The second phase leads into a more thorough research of human behaviour by posing the dilemma why did particular people do such a thing as an act of terrorism or a political murder. In spite of the fact that causality cannot be traced all the way neither generalized without becoming inapplicable, research on causes is far more advantageous. It enables us to look for more definite solutions for the problems of political violence by curing its causes instead of merely punishing for its consequences. Besides, we are thus moving from describing and categorizing what has happened to predicting what is likely to happen. Data on political violence, already gathered and systematized, form the framework for research of its causes. However, the quest for scientific objectivity requires utmost caution when analyzing such data: information is often biased, statistics are frequently incomparable. That is an indication that consensus on what political violence really is has not yet been reached. Objective criteria for its definition are generally supplemented by subjective connotations, such as motives and aims of the perpetrators and perceptions of researchers or of the general public. Identification of causes of political violence has recently gained much attention in literature on terrorism. There are basically four types of terrorism determined by the causes established so far. First, we have to take account political and/or ideological terrorism often tied to the appearance and strategy of the New Left. Secondly, terrorism is also one of the consequences of ethnic and racial separatist or emancipatory movements. The third type could be attributed to socio-economic conditions and aspirations of marginalized social strata, such as students at over-crowded universities, the unemployed or migrant-workers. The fourth type could be defined as pathological terrorism, and criminal terrorist acts can be subsumed into that category. Although terrorism cannot be explained by one set of causes only, as it usually falls into more than one type of the four enumerated above, such a classification serves as a beginning of identification of its causes.

Unlike the debates on terrorism in everyday discourse & the media that, as a rule, imply that terrorism is an activity of nonstate groups & organizations, the author defines "terrorism" by means of its acts' nature & goals & not by its perpetrators -- hence, state terrorism. The author outlines a typology of the state's involvement in terrorism & highlights the question of terrorism's moral status. His assumption is that any act of terrorism is an ultimate moral evil, but that state terrorism is a greater evil than terrorism as practiced by nonstate actors. The author offers four arguments to corroborate this view. The last paragraph of this article speaks about counterterrorism &, finally, about the "war on terrorism" waged today by the US & its allies. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

The US governance model created in the 1930s & known as Big Government is analyzed within the context of its application in foreign policy. The author looks into the foreign policy role of the American federal government, the dynamics of the relationship between the executive & the legislative branches during & following the Cold War period, & the changes occurring after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Emphasis is on analysis of the Cold War legacy of the so-called nontraditional instruments of foreign policy interventions or the resources & techniques of covert activity. The author concludes that the extensive utilization of these instruments has significantly undermined the principle of limited federal government as one of the fundaments of American politics. However, in light of the new mobilization of resources in the fight against terrorism, it is necessary once again to evaluate the means of covert activity. 14 References. Adapted from the source document.

Since WWII, there have been opposing views of the role & the importance of the state in international affairs. Some think that the importance of the state is slowly decreasing, since the increasing interdependence of the world has an enormous influence on both the internal & foreign policies of a state. On the other hand, some point out that the state has not lost any of its importance; on the contrary, this importance will only be enhanced since the world community has not yet come up with a model to replace sovereign state entities. States generate the structure that has a significant influence on individual & group security. This particularly applies to the post-Cold-War period, since the problems & threats of the present-day world -- economic collapse, political oppression, poverty, ethnic conflicts, uncontrolled population boom, nature degradation, terrorism, crime, & disease -- directly affect many other elements of security. It is these problems that turn our attention to the state as the most important institution of the contemporary world, since it still has at its disposal the resources for reducing or eliminating these threats. Adapted from the source document.