The Terrorism, One Danger with Many Names. Although violent attacks that were qualified as terrorist have targeted places all around the world, how can we explain that states did not come together to fight against the phenomenon?
Files
SOMESAN_95561800_2020.pdf
Closed access - Adobe PDF
- 870.95 KB
Details
- Supervisors
- Faculty
- Degree label
- Abstract
- This paper is an analysis of the way state actors, responsible for the security of their own countries, define the phenomenon of terrorism, and how they understand to fight it and to prevent its proliferation. It will try to find an explanation for the fact that main international state actors, such as Russia and the United States of America, involved in security and international relations, give different definitions to the same phenomenon. Consequently, they choose different ways to prevent it. The core question that this paper will try to answer is how we can explain the divergent views about terrorism and the lack of a common strategy to fight the phenomenon, although violent attacks that were qualified as terrorist have struck places all over the world. Based on the theoretical notions of the constructivist theory, are explored three possible sources of divergency: the identity, the interests, and the sources of change of those elements. As case studies, are analysed the views of Russia and USA regarding the military groups and militias involved in the conflicts from Afghanistan and Syria, with the aim to outline who is considered terrorist by whom.