How will you decide which category an act belongs to?

That is one of the difficulties. I am going to look at the various definitions war crimes, genocide, rendition etc and then compare them with state terrorism and counter-terrorism and then look act the actual acts that are carried out and try and categorized them within each terminology eg. rendition is it a war crime and act of state terrorism and or done in the name of counterterrorism. I am trying to find anyone who has looked at this and any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

Well, it may be safe to say that no state would openly say that it is engaging in state terrorism but has always made references to security for its use of violence, the rather vague notion of terrorism after 9/11 has only made this discourse more visible. US is perhaps the most visible example of double standards and moral.

Agreed.One of the other interesting aspects of this research is that state set the definitions as as you say no state would acknowledge state terrorism. However if we look at history state terrorism was the most common form of terrorism. The US and the UK are the countries I will be focusing one for this research. The whole question of terrorism changed after 9/11 due to policies of the Bush/Blair Government and these will need to be examined to ascertain their impact. The National Security Strategy 2001 and the Nations Strategy for Counter-terrorism 2002 gives some clues as to the rationale and policy directions and what is acceptable to the US and to the international community.

It should prove challenging and I hope enjoyable

It is an important and interesting topic and I look forward to see some research on it. Hope you will be able to solve some of the challenges we briefly touch upon above!

Thanks Oscar. There is very little written about the linkages and I am enjoying the research very much. Good luck for 2014

I would look at Uzbekistan as a case study as the most egregious example of "counter-terrorism" into repression. The "incident" in Andijon in 2005 I believe is a prime example of using CT to protect the state. Also, Russia has done many activities in the state in the name of CT. I will get you more as they come to me. Good luck

Many thanks Daniel for the leads and when you think of others I would be most grateful

Hi Christine!

You've chosen a whopper of a topic! (Believe me, I know, my research also has a fair bit to do with terrorism and state responses to it.) I ended up writing a novel below with suggestions for further research and recommendations for getting a clearer idea of your definitions (without clear definitions, you will not know what you're looking for and will stumble around in the dark, producing something confusing at the end). If you have any questions, drop me a line.

I highly recommend "The Strategy of Terrorism: How it Works and Why It Fails" by MLR Smith and Neumann. It is not about state terrorism, but what it does offer is a strategic definition of terrorism, which is something you'll need at the outset. Your current definition is much too broad. Warfare is ALWAYS political and ALWAYS spreads terror. That is not enough to define it as terrorism. Your definition of state terror needs to be more careful, discerning, and clear.

One of the most important features of terrorism using a strategic definition (the book I suggested, along with others on terrorism, will begin to explain why such a definition is superior to others) are that the targets in question are of mostly symbolic significance, not strategic significance. They are meant exclusively to send a message. Targeted killings by drone could fall into this category if killing the selected targets was not otherwise effective in disrupting the group of combatants in question.

To discover if they are merely symbolic, you will need to look into the debate on the effectiveness of drone strikes. You might be surprised to know that many Pakistani tribesman in the areas affected by drones apparently actually support US strikes: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21588142-surprising-number-pakistanis-are-favour-drone-strikes-drop-pilot . And it's not just those in the military who insist that they work. Their targets, like members of Hamas, who were driven underground by targeted killings (albeit not by drone) to the point that they requested a cease fire, have admitted that the killings had reduced their (Hamas's) effectiveness. With the evidence I've seen (and trust me, I started off anti-targeted killing and anti-drone), these targets are not just symbolic and drone use would thus not count as terrorism.

Perhaps the greatest book out there on (Israeli) counterterrorism is Byman's A HIgh Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism. You can read that and decide if any of that qualifies as state terror. (Targeted killings of Hamas members are covered within.)

Also, some important definitional issues from your question: You called drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, etc. STRATEGIES. They are not strategies, they are TACTICS, the tools someone uses (usually combining several) to achieve an end. The overarching idea behind the tools used and how they are used together to achieve a goal is the strategy. Terrorism itself is generally a tactic, one tool among many, though as the book above discusses, there is also a strategy of terrorism.

Finally, why the mention of "neoliberal"? This is a term for economic philosophies and, as far as I know, is not something that has been applied to foreign policy or military strategy (except within attempts to explain politics exclusively via economics, which have continually failed). Also, as another colleague has mentioned above, state terror is often associated with countries like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Arab dictatorships, countries that are decidedly NOT neoliberal. I'd recommend just leaving that whole association out, as I do not think it will help you investigate your topic.

Counterterrorism/ State Terrorism discourse falls into the larger question of political violence. State & non-state actors indulge in violence to achieve their political objectives which among other things include the destabilisation of enemy state and the later uses all means at its disposal to defend it against the enemy state or non-state actors. Violence is dehumanising, whether indulged by the state or nonstate actors. However, state has monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. It falls within its sovereign rights. Since terrorists and their sponsors challenge the state sovereignty, the threatened state has legitimate right to defend it through all possible means. Violation of human rights, killing of noncombatants, etc. is the collateral damage of war on terror. While looking at the question of counter-terrorism/state terrorism, you must look into the legitimacy/legality of violence indulged by the state and nonstate actors.

Agree, The question of legitimacy and legality are at the heart of the discussion. The US both Bush and Obama have used the theory of Just War to give credibility to their war on terror and argue that they have a right to preemptive strike whether this be drone attacks, CIA attacks or NSA etc to prevent any further attacks on US home soil. States make the rules and define what state terrorism is and how it is interpreters and as such define what violence is accepted or not acceptable. There have been far more people by state terrorism acts than by non state actor acts yet state terrorism has largely been ignored. As Charles has mentioned above violence in what ever form e.g. drone, killings, human right abuses etc are the tools by which many counter-terrorism policies are implemented.

There are two ways terrorism is defined. One boils down to "unauthorized or unconventional violence" (often with something about the target choice, like civilians). This first one is always subjective and thus problematic. The other is a better, strategic definition I spoke of above. You won't find a clear definition of what states find acceptable unless you choose that of one state or another, which I see as a rather biased approach. Of course if you just want to discuss political violence (basically warfare) or restrict it to drone use, etc. (certainly full of ethical issues to probe) you can avoid most definitional issues, which is something to consider if you don't have a lot of time to engage with the literature on terrorism.

I think I have research in this topic, I wrote that when I was a student in the Master degree. the article was in Arabic language but I can translate it and help you

Dear Abdallah,

I would appreciate the article if it is not too much trouble.

Christine, this might also help: http://the-real-issues.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what-is-terrorism.html

Ah, and read my comment about it at the bottom as well. :)

Check for literature on Uyghur and PRC policies on GWOT, should help you with the question.

Thanks Charles and Eram I will follow up on both these suggestions.

Mohamed, the question of one person definition of terrorism while another's is a freedom fighter is in many cases valid and once again it comes down to definition and situation. It is also critical to remember that it is states that place the labels on action and thus there is a political dimension to all of this often but not always including the political violence.

Yes information technology does and will continue to play a significant role in terrorist both state and non state actors actions and how to curb or control this aspects needs to be considered carefully by all parties

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a category mistake! One term tells why the person is fighting, the other indicates one of the tactics used. They are completely unrelated! Is a person fighting to remove an occupying power or overthrow an authoritarian regime a freedom fighter? Yes! If this person employs terrorist tactics along the way, this does not suddenly make him no longer a freedom fighter! He is a freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics, pure and simple. It is possible to be one or the other, both, or neither.

Agreed although it is a quote often referred to in readings and articles on the subject and in many ways highlights the principle that states are most often for the determination of what is a terrorist.

Right. This shows how often it becomes subjective, which doesn't lend itself to being studied. Politicians have no idea.

Exactly and which is why it is so very interesting to us.

The question has been much discussed in academia as well as judicial circles. Following the American declaration of 'War on Terror', many countries (particularly those that rendered support to America on their own soil for the 'war'), found it convenient to promulgate draconian laws that could be used under the garb of the 'war' to severely restrict Human Rights. The question however is - was that justified?

One of the solemn duties of every government is to provide for the protection of its own citizens as well as those under its jurisdictions, rights against government oppression. The simplest way to do this is to ensure that due process is followed in investigating, charging, trying and punishing an accused. That the investigation is a complicated process or cost-intensive process and therefore 'compelling' a confession through torture and rendition is expedient to bring the person to 'justice' is exactly opposite to all that is fundamental to the protection of Human Rights. Even in normal cases involving drug peddlers and such like (Rochin v. California, for example) the US Supreme Court has upheld individual right over the right of police to 'investigate'.

There is a subtle difference between bringing a terrorist to justice and avenging his alleged act. Investigating agencies have to bear in mind that these two territories are divided by a line thinner than the air we breathe. When state agencies apply extra-ordinary measures they are invariably breaching the thin line.

In many ways the line has been breached in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Human Rights and Humanitarian law seems to subjugated in the overall "war on terror" . In looking at the question of state terrorism there are so many different definition and the majority are developed to fit the purpose of the government defining the issues. For me it is a question of how much loss of freedoms both in an country specific and world specific forum is necessary. One always has to remember that terrorism has a political purpose and so does counter-terrorism.

The Strategic of Terrorism has tried to define terrorism without the emotions and to place it in context. In the hierarchy of the response to state terrorism I think it goes like this:

The policy or strategy comes first - it maybe a counterterrorist policy or statement. From this follows the policy and then the development of tactics e.g gathering of resources, personnel etc to counter any attacks. The actual implementation of the tactics is the bit that is most visible and can attract both negative and positive responses.

With regards to a terrorist act I think the process is similar: The group has a strategy that they are working towards, the policy is deciding who will undertake the action, where and how the action will occur ( the development of the tactics) and the actual attacks is the implementation of the tactics.

Dear Christine,

Most countries, either by design or default (by design because it suits ‘economic’ and ‘political’ interests in some cases; by default because of lack of perspective) tend to treat Terror as another albeit larger dimension of law and order. Terror, as you said, has political objectives. So do insurgencies and guerilla movements and all other organized forms of challenges to government authority. Therefore it is important to understand that there are two dimensions to dealing with terror. One, to deal with an iron hand (not at the expense of law, certainly) the manifest forms of violence and its perpetrators. Two, to deal with understanding and resolve to address social-economic-political issues that have caused people to adopt to violence. It is incorrect to presume that certain societies live by the sword and they are prone to perpetrate terror. One look at human history will reveal that every society has lived by the sword. The cause of such unethical and roguish violence that terrorism is therefore needs to be addressed not only through military might. It needs support and promotion of certain basic factors in political, sociological and environmental dimensions.

A good case that I have come across in this regard is the manner in which the Philippine government dealt with ASG (Abu Sayef Group) in the Mindano Island. Perhaps such strategies as adopted by the government and General Alfredo Filler in the instant case need through study, modification to suit local issues and replication.

A couple of good, thought provoking articles that deal with law, Human Rights and Counter Terrorism are mentioned below. May be you would like to take a look.

‘Too close to the rack and the screw: Constitutional constraints in the War on Terror’, Seth F. Kreimer, Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol 6:2, pp 278-325.

‘Terror Meets Tyranny: The interface between counter-terrorism and Human Rights’, Alex Conte, in ELAW Journal, Murdoch University, Australia which is a paper presented at the Australasian Law Teachers' Association Conference Law and Social Justice Committee 29 September to 2 October 2002, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.

Warm regards. Have a great day!

Dear Christine,

Most countries, either by design or default (by design because it suits ‘economic’ and ‘political’ interests in some cases; by default because of lack of perspective) tend to treat Terror as another albeit larger dimension of law and order. Terror, as you said, has political objectives. So do insurgencies and guerilla movements and all other organized forms of challenges to government authority. Therefore it is important to understand that there are two dimensions to dealing with terror. One, to deal with an iron hand (not at the expense of law, certainly) the manifest forms of violence and its perpetrators. Two, to deal with understanding and resolve to address social-economic-political issues that have caused people to adopt to violence. It is incorrect to presume that certain societies live by the sword and they are prone to perpetrate terror. One look at human history will reveal that every society has lived by the sword. The cause of such unethical and roguish violence that terrorism is therefore needs to be addressed not only through military might. It needs support and promotion of certain basic factors in political, sociological and environmental dimensions.

A good case that I have come across in this regard is the manner in which the Philippine government dealt with ASG (Abu Sayef Group) in the Mindano Island. Perhaps such strategies as adopted by the government and General Alfredo Filler in the instant case need through study, modification to suit local issues and replication.

A couple of good, thought provoking articles that deal with law, Human Rights and Counter Terrorism are mentioned below. May be you would like to take a look.

‘Too close to the rack and the screw: Constitutional constraints in the War on Terror’, Seth F. Kreimer, Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol 6:2, pp 278-325.

‘Terror Meets Tyranny: The interface between counter-terrorism and Human Rights’, Alex Conte, in ELAW Journal, Murdoch University, Australia which is a paper presented at the Australasian Law Teachers' Association Conference Law and Social Justice Committee 29 September to 2 October 2002, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.

Warm regards. Have a great day!

I'll add one thing to this: Violating human rights is not the same thing as state terrorism. The latter may involve the former, but does not have to. Restrictions on personal freedoms are not state terror. Torture may be, but only if it is used to instill fear of that torture in order to quash opposition (which is quite often the case--one need look only at regimes that oppress opposition to see that torture is used not only to gain information, but also, and perhaps primarily, to force compliance through fear). Compliance through fear is pretty close to a definition of what state terror is. But I would argue this has to be the main purpose, or at least one of the main purposes, of torture for it to count as terrorism. Again, I'm not saying it isn't--in many cases I think it definitely is, but torture may be used for many purposes to varying effect and is, by itself, not an inherently terrorist act. (I'd also like to underscore that I am not making a normative statement defending torture by any means. Torture is wrong, whether it is terrorism or not has nothing to do with that judgment.)

Hi Charles and Srinivasan

Yes torture is wrong in any circumstances. It is an interesting division in the line between state terrorism and other forms of abuse. In many ways it is the circumstances and the motivation that often defines the action as to whether it is an abuse of human rights, a war crime or state terrorism.

Of course for state terrorism there must be a state involvement whether is a direct involvement or via a third party can also cloud the issue. When the CIA or similar organisations undertakes covers actions that are politically motivated and spread terror among a population can this be classified be classified as state terrorism.

There is certainly a cultural social and economic influence in terrorism and this can affect the range and nature of the tactics used. In many cases one of the root causes has been social and economical issues that has caused the establishment of terrorist organisation to fight for the people's rights and by taking this action the political elements come into play. Some of the terrorist organisation and act maybe averted by addressing the socio-economic and political motivations of the organisation however, some are very diverse particularly those that have been franchised over many countries and with different philosophies. I do think the nature and the make-up of such organisation can be multi-layered and as such a global solution needs to be found. This does not necessarily mean attacking the organisation it can mean developing strategies that support dialogue, a recognition and improvement in socio-economic - political conditions in some situations

Apropos root causes of terrorism, I recommend reading Pape's "Dying to Win." Others have criticized his conclusions, but I think he makes a strong case for terrorism (at least almost) always having nationalist roots. This does not rule out social and economics factors, of course, as they may commingle, but it adds an interesting dimensions and I think it has more explanatory power than economic conditions in particular (as a necessary but insufficient condition). I'd even wager that economics has very little, if anything, to do with it.

@ Charles

Many analysts other than Pape, do hold the view that economic or social factors do not necessarily contribute to terrorism. They point out that across the globe social marginalisation and economic exploitation have existed before and after terrorism took roots in their soil. Their conclusion therefore is political oppression and the resultant surge of nationalism are the main causes. But even this argument is on thin ice since many communities have lived under political oppression without resorting to mindless violence.

A closer look at some of the organisations branded as terrorist - Sendoro Luminoso, the Red Brigade, Hamas and now Al Quaeda, etc would tend us infer that ideology couple with 'identity' could be at their root, suitably fanned by socioeconomic factors to spring out as terrorists.

While the causes could be any, the question is can a state adopt procedures outside the law to deal with the issue? An eye for an eye? Apart from lack of moral sanction such processes are hardly distinguishable when state agencies use them against their own citizens. After all, vested interests prevail in every walk of public life. Hence, the moment we accept that torture is acceptable against a 'terrorist' it is only a matter of convenience for some law-enforcing official to dub an innocent man as terrorist and employ similar methods. This precisely is where the danger lies.

Hi Srinivasan: Pape was just an example, though I do think his specific conclusion that terrorist groups have national goals is interesting and I find it very plausible. That doesn't make it a sufficient condition, as you point out (I think I may have confused "goals" and "causes" above due to the terms' partial overlap in English!). Overall, I agree with you almost 100%, except that I think for Christine, her question is whether states' responses are terrorism, which I do not believe is clear and is a separate question from whether stepping outside the law is right. (I also try to define terrorism in non-moral, tactical terms, so whether something receives moral sanction or not does not factor into whether it is terror; both states and non-state actors would be defined using the same criteria.)

I am joining late so not sure if you are still working on this question. Yes, states have and are exploiting 9/11 to further their interests. Muslims' violence and state led counter violence in Xinjiang province of China is being widely cited example of such approach. Pakistan tried it but has failed due to absence of a clear policy to curb militants of varying genres, some of whom have been held as strategic asset in the past. the state's capacity is also a moot in limiting such efforts. Kashmir freedom movement in India is yet another example of brute force being used under the policy guise of counter terrorism. Some have also referred to boundaries of counter terrorism paradigm of Sri Lanka during its war with Tamil Tigers. Same can be said of Russia during Chechen wars. regards

Hi Muhammad

Nice to hear from you. I agree with your view of things and firmly agree that counter terrorism in masking a lot of acts of violence we see post 9/11

A gentle nudge back to the question, though, which is not whether states are using violence and calling it counterterrorism, a claim that is virtually uncontroversial by itself. The question was whether they are using it to mask state terrorism. I cannot speak on this with regard to Pakistan or China, but states using violence in counter-terrorism is not, by itself, state terrorism, which is something specific.

I think we would do justice to Chistine's question if we first attempt to define these terms: Terrorism, counter terrorism, state terrorism and human rights violations. Can we get our thoughts together, please?

In many ways all are linked but yet separate . For me state terrorism is politically motivate to achieve a state of fear or terror. It  is carried out by a state or by a third party that represents the state

Terrorism is an act or acts of violence that induces terror against a country or community 

Counter terrorism is a policy leading to an action that is designed to mitigate the act of terrorism. Although we have recently seen counter terrorism techniques used to cause a sense of terror or fera

State terrorism is terrorism committed against civilians by a 'state' ie government actors, as distinct from a civilian group eg the state terrorism of Israel against Gaza/Palestine or some of the examples already given. Terrorism is often defined as being the unlawful use of violence, force or intimidation against civilians to achieve political/social ends. But the notion of 'unlawful violence' presents a problem, as all violence against people breaches  their right to physical integrity, which leads us to a contradiction - something may be a human right, yet it can be 'lawfully breached. Counter-terrorism is merely a weapon of the New World Order to impose itself. Human rights violations are any breach of the Universal Declaration of HUman Rights committed by anyone except the US and Israel - even Britain is sometimes held accountable in the European Court of HUman Rights, but the US and Israel - never, anywhere. How to solve? Are human rights absolute? It seems not. There lies the cavernous hole that state actors drive their terrorism through. 

 I very much agree with your summary particularly where the US and Israel are concerned, Human rights violations are occurring often as part of counter terrorism strategies. This is where the concept and often the excuse of the Just War Theory is used by governments to carry our state  terrorism  and counter terrorism in the name of protecting their own sovereignty and first strike attacks. 

This article may be useful:

Bier, V. and Hausken, K. (2011), “Endogenizing the Sticks and Carrots: Modeling Possible Perverse Effects of Counterterrorism Measures,” Annals of Operations Research 186, 1, 39-59.

Article Endogenizing the sticks and carrots: Modeling possible perve...

After the horrific crime that took place after the September 11 attacks, democratic countries are working to eliminate the global terror of Islamic extremism, forgetting that their countries allow the Salafist schools of terrorists to gain more young teenagers to send them to the Middle Eastern guillotine if the fight against terrorism is properly addressed After the events of the United States of America in 2001, the elimination of the mosques of the extremists spread in Europe and America, accounting Saudi Arabia as it helps terrorists and extremist leadership all of them, and make them cut off the assistance and funds sent to terrorists.،