Suchergebnisse

This book improves our understanding of terrorists' motivations and rationality and may, ultimately, also indicate how to respond to the phenomenon of terrorism. In his research studies, Eric van Um explores the political rationality of terrorist groups. The political rationality model builds on rational choice theory. It demands that terrorist groups take into account the costs and benefits of their available options and choose the option promising them the highest political utility. Testing the explanatory power of this model is relevant, as rational choice approaches have become very prominent in terrorism research. But, at the same time, their empirical power remains highly contested. Increased knowledge of the political rationality model not only promises added value for terrorism research itself, but also for social sciences more generally. Contents  Terrorists' Psychological and Economic Rationality  Terrorists' Motives  The Puzzle of Inter-Terrorist Group Violence  The Puzzle of Terrorist Groups' Political Ineffectiveness  Testing the Explanatory Power of the Political Rationality Model Target Groups  Lecturers and students of social sciences specializing in security and terrorism research, conflict research, and economic theory  Employees of authorities and think tanks focused on security-related issues The Author Eric van Um received his doctorate degree fro< m the University of Hamburg in 2015. His research focus is on security economics, international security, and political violence

Most of the research on terrorism studies the relationship between militant groups and targeted states. This means that we actually know little about the role of violence in intergroup relationships. Previous research has claimed that such forms of violence occur regularly but underlying patterns and motives remain under-researched. This paper seeks to advance understanding of inter-terrorist group violence both among groups with shared and competing objectives. It particularly aims to analyze the characteristics of inter-group violence and also tries to determine if such violence reflects strategic decision-making or if it rather stems from expressive motives. The paper uses a mixed method approach which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses for a sample of countries. Data is primarily obtained from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and complemented with further datasets, reports and other qualitative sources. Results indicate that inter-group violence has taken place both among terrorist groups with competing and shared objectives but remained limited in absolute numbers. The low levels of incidents do not mean that disputes have not arisen but competition has rather unfolded on a verbal level or as low-level violence including intimidation and exiling. A case study on Northern Ireland is then used to elaborate on the particular drivers and dynamics of such violence. Results further show that violence among militants has mostly been driven by strategic considerations of the actors involved. When groups clashed it was usually for a purpose beyond emotional satisfaction and regularly related to a fight for support and influence.

Scholars of terrorism studies have long struggled to agree on a common understanding of what terrorism is. To date, they have agreed on little more than the fact that terrorism is difficult to define. As a consequence, more than 100, if not more than 200 modern definitions of terrorism have been formulated. Within those definitions, different aspects of terrorism are stressed including the underlying motivations, applied tactics and chosen targets. While no consensus has been found on how to define terrorism or terrorists, a meta-study by Schmid and Jongman (1988) provides fruitful insight into the most relevant aspects of definitions of terrorism which have proven valid to the present day. The two researchers analyzed various academic and official definitions of terrorism and identified three main elements as being vital to define terrorism; (1) the use (or threat) of violence1, (2) political objectives and (3) the intention of sowing fear in a target population as a means of achieving these political objectives.

Sicherheitsthemen sind ein klassisches Feld der politischen Auseinandersetzung in Demokratien - im deutschen Fall spielt dabei die föderale Prägung eine entscheidende Rolle. Der vorliegende Beitrag ist ein erster Versuch, die politische Positionierung von Parteien in Deutschland im Bereich Kriminalität und Innere Sicherheit zu messen und deren Dynamiken zu erklären. Um diesen Fragen nachzugehen, wird die Bedeutung von Themen der Inneren Sicherheit in Wahlprogrammen sowohl auf Landes- als auch Bundesebene codiert, wobei alle Wahlprogramme der in Landesparlamenten eingezogenen Parteien zwischen September 2011 (Abgeordnetenhauswahl in Berlin) und September 2014 (Landtagswahlen in Brandenburg und Thüringen) berücksichtigt werden. In den gewonnenen Daten zu den Policy-Positionen der Parteien werden erhebliche Unterschiede in der Bedeutung der Problemfelder der Inneren Sicherheit deutlich. Bedeutsame Unterschiede treten dabei sowohl in einzelnen Bundesländern im Vergleich der Parteien als auch zwischen den Landesverbänden einer Partei zutage. Gleichzeitig lassen sich auch grundsätzliche Einflussfaktoren auf die Themensetzung von Parteien identifizieren. So gelingt es neu entstehenden, vermeintlichen Ein-Themen-Parteien (Piratenpartei und AfD) einerseits, die Themen für jene parlamentarisch etablierten Parteien zu einem gewissen Grad "vorzugeben", die ihnen bei der Wählerklientel vergleichsweise nahe stehen. Andererseits können besonders sogenannte Skandale dazu beitragen, dass ansonsten in Wahlkämpfen vermiedene Themen herausgestellt werden. So erlangte insbesondere durch den NSU-Skandal die Arbeit der Geheimdienste eine zuvor nicht gekannte Bedeutung für Policy-Positionen der Parteien. Allerdings zeigen sich solche bundesweit beachteten Skandale nicht notwendigerweise in allen Wahlprogrammen. Die NSU-Affäre schlug sich beispielsweise programmatisch nur regional begrenzt nieder. ; Topics around security are a central field of political discourse in democracies - in the German case federalism plays a characterizing role. This article is a first trial to measure policy positions and its dynamics within the policy field of crime and internal security in Germany. The salience of the different issues in party manifestos on state and federal level is analyzed. The comparative approach is based on a comprehensive analysis of the party manifestos of parties that were elected into federal parliaments successfully between September 2011 (House of Representatives election in Berlin) and September 2014 (Parliament elections in Brandenburg and Thuringia). Results show the substantial inequality of the relevance different topics of internal security play. Relevant differences become apparent within political parties as well as across the German Länder. Still, the contents of parties' programs seem to be influenced by a number of rather generalizable factors. During the observation period, topics gained timeliness for two reasons: On the one hand it appears that emerging and presumed single-issue parties (the Pirate Party and the AfD) can "set" topics for the already established parties that seek after a similar clientele within the electorate. On the other hand, in particular the NSU-scandal had the power to bring up issues that are normally avoided in party manifestos, such as issues around the secret services. This area was not explicitly covered by any political party before the NSU-scandal. However, these German-wide scandals do not need to be salient in all manifestos. The NSU-scandal, for example, had only a regional impact.

The terrorist threat has increased in importance over the last decade and Western governments have implemented a multitude of measures to address it. Their numbers and the significant financial cost they involve have, however, not been matched with an adequate evaluation of effectiveness. We can therefore only make limited statements on whether or not counterterrorism policy has been effective. Three conclusions with policy implications can nevertheless be drawn from our analysis: the dependency on the local context; the ineffectiveness of measures entailing the use of force; and the need for more evaluation research on protective measures.

This paper presents key aspects and policy implications of a multi-annual research project on economic analyses of European security issues (EUSECON), with an emphasis on intentional threats of organised crime, piracy and terrorism. The first part argues that rational models can provide significant insights on the emergence and current patterns of terrorism and piracy. These findings could lead to new priorities or to more nuanced interventions in response to these threats. The second part focuses on the direct and indirect costs of both terrorism and organised crime. EUSECON provided new data about the scope of related illegal economic activities and explored the sensitivity of markets, societies and polities in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. It emerges that political actors are at greatest risk of over-responding, whereas mature economies display a high degree of resilience. Finally, the third part discusses economic approaches to policy evaluation. EUSECON clarified the benefits of transnational security cooperation, but also highlights the difficulties of rigorous costeffectiveness and cost-benefit calculations. Therefore, a more evidence-based approach to security policymaking, which is increasingly touted by EU decision-makers, remains elusive. In conclusion, European security policy needs further scrutiny from an economic perspective, in order to answer the increasing complexity of security challenges under the increasing financial or political constraints.