Since 9/11 there has been unprecedented interest in terrorism across political, media, and academic discourses. Indeed, regarding the latter, in 2008 The Guardian reported a 23-fold increase in academic articles citing ‘terrorism’ since 2001. Despite this proliferation of research, analysis and commentary, a number of interconnected problems persist in the study and understanding of terrorism.
An axiom in this debate is the notion that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is highly contested. Often, this is articulated by the simplistic notion of the terrorism versus freedom fighter cliché, which, although this does much to highlight the moral relativism of terrorist action, is close to conceptually useless.
This is due to a number of reasons. First, as Weinberg (2005: 2) correctly argues, the maxim “ simply confuses [es] the goal of terrorism with the activity”. What does this have to say about essentially guerrilla groups that occasionally adopt terrorist tactics, such as the LTTE, for example? Moreover, to what extent do the activities of groups such as ISIS challenge these distinctions between guerilla and terrorist activity?
Moreover, the terrorist/freedom fighter opposition does little to highlight the diversity of terrorist activity, which is often tied to specific actions and thus whether they are deemed justifiable. It fails to grasp the nuances and complexity of ‘just causes’ that lie beyond mere moral relativism and, crucially the internal complexities and changes in strategies and activities during the evolution of terrorist campaigns.
Finally, this relative approach to the definition of terrorism does not account for the role of the state as a terrorist actor. This latter concern has led to the ‘emergence’ of critical terrorism studies which positions itself against what they perceive to be the orthodox standpoint of much mainstream scholarship on the issue. In particular, critical terrorism scholars point to the state, rather than dissident groups being the principal source of insecurity.