天易网

 找回密码
 注册
楼主: 郭国汀

恐怖主义和国家恐怖主义研究

  [复制链接]
 楼主| 发表于 11/10/2013 15:55:37 | 显示全部楼层
Akey finding in the terrorism literature is that dictatorships experience lessterrorism than democracies. However, we have few explanations for why somedictatorships experience substantial threats from terrorism while others do not.when active opposition parties operate in the absence of legislatures,political opponents increasingly turn to terrorism. We find evidence thatterrorist groups are most likely to emerge in dictatorships with oppositionpolitical parties but no elected legislature. These regimes also experience thehighest volume of subsequent attacks. [1]


[1] Deniz Aksoy ,DavidB. Carter, and Joseph Wright, Terrorism In Dictatorships, The Journal ofPolitics, Vol. 74, No. 3, July 2012, P. 810.


 楼主| 发表于 11/10/2013 16:45:42 | 显示全部楼层
Our key findingsare, first, that terrorism is more likely to originate in ethnically tense nation-states.Second, the connection between ethnic tension and terrorism persists even aftercontrolling for political rights and civil liberties. Liberal political institutionsindeed are associated with fewer transnational terrorist acts in the periodafter the Cold War. But this result is not robust prior to 1990. New rounds ofterrorist violence seem to have been unleashed in countries where the heavyhand of Soviet control was not quickly displaced by freer institutions ofgovernance. Third, and what is most important, we find that economic freedoms lessenthe tendency for ethnic tensions to spawn transnational terrorism over theentire sample, both before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In otherwords, the proximate cause of terrorist attacks is a lack of good economicinstitutions rather than ethnic differences.[1]


[1] Enders, W. andSandler, T. (2006)p.85


 楼主| 发表于 11/10/2013 20:56:56 | 显示全部楼层
Overall, the institutionsdata covers 140 countries from 1946 to 2008, and the terrorist group datacovers the period from 1970 to 2007. We combine the two sources and employ datafor 138 authoritarian spells from 1970 to 2007.[1]Young and Dugan (2010) generated a list of groups from the Global TerrorismDatabase (GTD) of terrorist attacks; they utilize this information to build adatabase of 2021 groups that existed from 1970 to 2007.

variable breaks authoritarian institutionsinto four exclusive categories as follows:
1. Opposition Parties withNo Legislature (12%): Coded one when at least one de facto party exists outsideof the regime front but there is no elected legislature, zero otherwise.
2. Opposition Parties withLegislature (36%): Coded one when at least one de facto party exists outside ofthe regime front and there is an elected legislature, zero otherwise.
3. No Parties (17%): Codedone when there are no political parties, zero otherwise.
4. Single Regime Party(35%): Coded one when there is only one regime party, zero otherwise.

regimes with oppositionparties and no legislature (category 1) as the reference category in ourregression
models. Under such regimes,the opposition is organized through political parties but not co-opted througha legislature, which provides the incentives and the organizational capacity toresort to violence.

Countries under the thirdand fourth categories will be the least fertile for terrorism. Single-party regimes(category 3) are typically the most resilient as they have successfullyco-opted opposition groups into their party structure. Further, these are ‘closedauthoritarian’ regimes in which mobilization outside the state structure isseverely limited. Robertson argues that in these regimes ‘‘dissidents are organizationallyisolated and have an extremely hard time creating organizations that cansustain a movement beyond narrow personal circles’’ (2011, 26).

The countries with no parties(category 4) are mostly monarchies and some military regimes. These have almostno need to allow institutions because they have other apparatus to deal withthe opposition (i.e.,military or security services; Gandhi 2008). Accordingly, sincesingle-party and no-party regimes tend to have other political organizations toco-opt opposition groups, opponents in these regimes have the least collectiveaction capacity to mobilize violent antiregime groups.

Finally, autocracies in thesecond category will experience more terrorism compared to those in the thirdand fourth categories and less terrorism than those in the first category. Ourexplanation suggests that opposition party activity facilitates terrorist groupmobilization. Thus, regime opponents in the second category should have thesame capacity if not the same incentive to pursue antigovernment strategies comparedto those in the first category. However, the existence of a legislature willfacilitate the co-optation of at least some of the organized opposition. Accordingly,the risk of terrorism should be lower where there is an elected legislature.[2]


[1] Deniz Aksoy ,David B. Carter, andJoseph Wright, Terrorism In Dictatorships,p.815

[2] Deniz Aksoy ,David B. Carter, andJoseph Wright, Terrorism In Dictatorships,p.816


 楼主| 发表于 11/10/2013 21:08:14 | 显示全部楼层
The earliest actsof terrorism to have started in ancient Palestine during the first century CE,when Jewish citizens sought freedom from Roman occupation by engaging inassassinations of Romans and suspected Jewish collaborators. One group wascalled the Sicari favored use short dagger to murder Jewishcollaborators. Another group, Zealots exhibited intense fanaticism bykilling mainly Romans and Greeks.[1]By the early middle ages, a radical Muslim group in the Middle East began tokill those who failed to follow fundamentalist versions of Islam, killers usedhashish prior to their killings and “assassin” is derived from “hashish”.Another group in India that functioned between the 7th and the 19th centuries,the Thugees ( derive the word “thug”), strangled their victims as anoffering to the Hindu goddess of terror and violence (CDI, 2003).


[1] Anthony J. Marsella, DHC & Fathali M. Moghaddam(2004)The Origins and Nature of Terrorism, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment& Trauma,9:1-2, pp.19-31


 楼主| 发表于 11/10/2013 21:17:58 | 显示全部楼层
The evolution of theterror  terrorist and terrorism

The word ‘terror’ derives fromthe Latin verb Tersere, meaning to dread or to be afraid. In ancient Greek, theword treo meant to flee from fear or to fear[1].The Latin word terrere began appearing in other Latin-based European languages,such as French and Spanish, but also in English, at the beginning of thetwelfth century. The French word for ‘terror’ originated from Latin parallelssuch as terror, terribilis and terrificar and appeared in French for the firsttime in 1160 as terrible most customary uses of the word ‘terror’ derive fromLatin. The French word terreur appeared in 1356, being used in 1587 to meanobject of fright and in 1625 to mean panic (terreur panique). The English word‘terror’ derived from Middle English terrour which originated from the Frenchterreur and from the Latin noun terror and verb terrere. According to the OxfordEnglish Dictionary it first appears in medieval English in 1375. In WilliamDunbar’s Ballat of Passion (1520) ‘terror’ meant ‘fear’ or ‘fright to the pointof trembling’. From 1560, terror and religion are linked in the English language,as is evident in Psalms, Chapter IV, Verse 4: ‘The terrors of death are fallenupon me’. A 1611 version of Job has the citation: ‘His confidence shall bringhim to the King of Terrours’, and in 1667 it appears yet again in a religiouscontext: ‘The Messiah cloathed with so much terror and majesty’. These uses ofthe term ‘terror’ reflect a totalitarian regime in which a monarch’s right totake life or impose death is underlined by the phrase ‘the King of Terrors’.Other applications of the term are evident in Shakespeare’s King Lear (1605):‘It is the Cowish terror of his spirit that dares not vendertake’, or in G.Sandys Trau: ‘By little and little they descended as their terror forsookethem’. In 1657 the phrase ‘Pan sends a terrour upon the Methymnaeans’ and in1711 Addison writes: ‘This remark struck a panic terror into several who werepresent’. Other words used in English that have been synonymous with terror andwhich also originated in Greek and Latin derive from ‘fear’ and ‘horror’. On theeve of the French Revolution, linguistic synonyms for and terms related toterror’ (including ‘fear’ and ‘horror’) were already deeply rooted in mostIndo- European-based languages and referred to a range of psychological,physical and even political understandings of the term.[2] The English word “terrorism” comes from the French term“regime de la terreur” that swept across the country during 1793-1794 of theFrench Revolution.


[1] Jonathan Fine (2010)Political and Philological Origins of the Term ‘Terrorism’ from the AncientNear East to Our Times, p.274

[2] Jonathan Fine (2010)Political and Philological Origins of the Term ‘Terrorism’ from the AncientNear East to Our Times, p.277


 楼主| 发表于 11/10/2013 21:24:30 | 显示全部楼层
The origin of the terrorin political contest

It was not the Greeks, the Romansor the Jews who first sought to name the use of terror in a political context. TheAssyrians were the first to coin two Acadian expressions for the use ofpolitical and military means to inspire fear and terror in one’s enemy. ThusPuluhtu, meaning fear, fearsomeness, or to shock, was used in the phrase ‘Fearand terror were poured out over all of Eilam’, whereas, as Dr. Shawn Z. Asterof Yeshiva University points out, Melammu was used to connote terror throughoutAssyrian history, from 1100 BCE and up until 612 BCE. In the Sumerian versionsof the Gilgamesh cycle the term puluhtu is used to suggest terror and the termni-me-lam-ma to imply terrifying. When puluhtu is not used in conjunction withmelammu it refers to one individual’s fear of another.[1] TheAssyrian Kings, as perpetrators, viewed political terror as a necessary andeffective political tool. Like Maximilien Robespierre many years later, theyjustified their ‘Reign of Terror’ as serving their kingdom or state.

Ancient Hebrew did not have aterm for ‘terror’. Unlike the Assyrians and the Greco-Roman world, the ancientHebrews did not have a political understanding of terror. Their interpretationwas strictly religious, centred on the relationship between man and God andbased on a moral perspective. In his book Terrorism and Political Violence: AnEgyptian Perspective Ahmed Galal Ezeldin stresses that in modern Arabic the wordfor ‘terror’ derives from irhab which originated from the medieval rahbah,meaning horror and fear. Irhab or terrorism derives from the verb arhaba, whichmeans scared or terrorized, with irhab and irhabi being later additions to theArab language. According to the Arab dictionary, Al-Wasit, Irhabiyun(terrorists) refers to ‘those who turn to violence and terrorism in order toachieve their political goals’. In the Al-Munjid dictionary, Irhabi (terrorist)refers to ‘he who turns to violence in order to enforce his political regime’,while the Al-hikm al-Irhabi (the reign of terror) is ‘a kind of governmentbased on terror and violence implemented by governments or revolutionarygroups’. The Al-Ra’id dictionary defines Irhab (terrorism) as ‘horror that is inflictedby acts of violence, such as murder, throwing hand grenades and sabotage’,while Al-Irhabi (the terrorist) is ‘he who turns to terrorism by murder orsetting explosive devices, in order to enforce his political regime or tooverthrow another’.[2]


[1]
Jonathan Fine (2010)Political and Philological Origins of the Term ‘Terrorism’ from the AncientNear East to Our Times, Middle Eastern Studies, 46:2, p.271.

[2] Jonathan Fine (2010)Political and Philological Origins of the Term ‘Terrorism’ from the AncientNear East to Our Times, p.273


 楼主| 发表于 11/11/2013 17:36:20 | 显示全部楼层
Social Factors and Terrorism

Traditionally,studies of political violence and terrorism have focused on the social andeconomic causes of terrorism. From the pioneering studies in the early 1970s (Gurr 1970) through to more recent studies (Hoffman 2006), therehas been a focus on terrorism as a result of social causes.[1]Relative deprivation’—often measured as economic inequality and a low level ofeconomic income (Krueger 2007) has often been blamed for increased levels inthe incidence of terrorist attacks. Far from wanting to dismiss these studiesentirely, there is evidence to suggest that these causes do not account for theoccurrence of terrorist incidents in Western Europe.


[1]Matt Haunstrup Qvortrup, Terrorism and Political Science, BJPIR: 2012 VOL 14, p.505


 楼主| 发表于 11/11/2013 17:38:34 | 显示全部楼层
Constitutional Engineering as a Strategy for Counterterrorism?

Thisfinding begs the question whether institutional reforms can be undertaken to createdemocracies that are less prone to terrorism. Lijphart (1999) has shown—astrong correlation between consensus democracies and proportional electoralsystems. The question is whether there is a direct correlation between PR andlower levels of terrorism. To test the relationship between, on the one hand, thetype of electoral system and the number of terrorist incidents and, on theother hand, the relationship between the type of electoral system and theinstitutions of consensus government, we can develop a crude index of electoralsystems. We split the electoral systems in Western Europe into threecategories, majoritarian (FPTP and run-off), mixed (MMP) and proportional (listPR and STV). we find a correlation between the type of electoral system and thenumber of terrorist incidents. The correlation between having a moremajoritarian electoral system and having more terrorist attacks is relativelystrong (r2-0.51, significant at the 0.001 level (one-tailed)).[1]In political science terms, there is a verystrong correlation between having aproportional electoral system (either STV or list PR) and having a political systemthat is associated with consensus government (r2= 0.81, significant at the 0.01 level),which, in turn, is correlated (r2 = 0.65) with lower levels of terrorism.[2]


[1] MattHaunstrup Qvortrup, Terrorism andPolitical Science, BJPIR: 2012 VOL 14, p.512-13

[2] MattHaunstrup Qvortrup, Terrorism andPolitical Science, BJPIR: 2012 VOL 14, p.513


 楼主| 发表于 11/11/2013 22:25:11 | 显示全部楼层
GusMartin’s popular textbook for example, suggests that the state sponsorship ofterrorism frequently consists of: ‘ideological support’, ‘financial support’, ‘militarysupport’, operational support’, ‘initiating terrorist attacks’, or ‘directinvolvement in terrorist attacks’ (Martin 2003, p. 91). Additionally, it iscommonly argued that weak, totalitarian, or so-called ‘rogue states’[1]are predisposed to sponsoring terrorism because: [F]oraggressive regimes, state terrorism in the international domain is advantageousin several respects: State terrorism is inexpensive. . . . Even poor nations can strike at and injure a prosperous adversary.. . . State terrorism has limitedconsequences. State assisters that are clever candistance themselves from culpability for a terrorist incident . . . and therebyescape possible reprisals or other penalties. Stateterrorism can be successful. Weaker states canraise the stakes beyond what a stronger adversary is willing to bear . . .[and] successfully destabilise an adversary through the use of a proxymovement. (Martin 2003, pp. 90–91; original emphasis)


[1] RichardJackson (2008) The ghosts of state terror: knowledge, politics and terrorismstudies, Critical Studies on Terrorism,Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2008,  p.381


 楼主| 发表于 11/12/2013 03:22:18 | 显示全部楼层
State terrorism is much worse than non-stateterrorism
Thereis a great deal of evidence of Western state involvement in terrorism. As a verycrude comparison, nonstate terrorism is responsible for between a few hundredand a few thousand deaths annually over the entire world, depending upon whichdata set or measures are employed. By contrast, states have killed, tortured,and intimidated hundreds of millions of people over the past century or so(Rummel 1994[1], Sluka 2000b[2]),and a great many states continue to do so today in places like Colombia, Haiti,Algeria, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Tibet,North Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sudan, and elsewhere. Many of thesestates regularly employ extensive state torture, extra-judicial killings,disappearances, collective punishments, and daily forms of violent intimidationto terrorise opponents and enforce compliance to state rule; human rightsgroups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch provide meticulousand continual documentation of these violations. The point is that even if onlya small fraction of these murders and acts of civilian-directed violence can beidentified analytically as acts of state terrorism, they would still vastlyoutnumber the annual acts of nonstate terrorism[3].however, the author still dare not mention that China under the CCP is the worststate terrorism.


[1] Rummel, R., 1994. Deathby government. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.

[2]Sluka, J., 2000b. Introduction: State terror and anthropology. In: J. Sluka, ed. Death squad: an anthropology of state terror. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

[3] RichardJackson (2008) The ghosts of state terror,p.385


您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 5/23/2018 19:26 , Processed in 0.304278 second(s), 10 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表