Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 12.1: Cubukcu, S., & Brian F. (2018). Measuring terrorism. Homicide Studies, 22(1), 94-116.

Abstract: This study investigates the extent of reporting and nature of biases in open-source (OS) terrorism databases. We compare OS accounts with official accounts on terrorism events in Turkey (1996-2012). Results indicate (a) substantial systematic discrepancy between OS and official accounts, which we attribute primarily to underreporting in OS accounts; (b) the discrepancy is not random—incident characteristics (victim/target, offender, and incident types, temporal and spatial factors) and rational factors (especially newsworthiness) matter; and (c) severity is the strongest predictor of the probability of OS coverage.

Journal Article 12.2: Mitton, J. (2014). The India-Pakistan rivalry and failure in Pakistan. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 69(3), 353-376.

Abstract: In discussions of NATO’s failure in Afghanistan, there is an increasing recognition of the damaging influence of competition between India and Pakistan. Yet, while reference to “rivalry” abounds, few authors connect Indian and Pakistani behaviour to the established literature on international rivalry. This paper corrects this explanatory gap by applying findings from the subfield of rivalry research. States engaged in rivalry behave differently; each issue of contention is fused into the broader rivalry relationship. For India, influence in Afghanistan is a component of its regional strategy, designed to maintain dominance over Pakistan in South Asia. For Pakistan, influence in Afghanistan is sought primarily for the opportunity to confront, damage, and frustrate Indian aims. The result is continued violence and instability. For policymakers, an appropriate appreciation of the strategic and political realities in a given region is a prerequisite for future international interventions in order to avoid such complications.

Journal Article 12.3: Heng, Y., & McDonagh, K. (2011). After the ‘war on terror’: Regulatory states, risk bureaucracies and the risk-based governance of terror. International Relations, 25(3), 313-329.

Abstract: In March 2009, the Obama administration sent a message to senior Pentagon staff instructing them to refrain from using either of the terms ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ and to replace these terms with ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’. The change in tone and, potentially, substance, from the Obama White House by ending the ‘war on terror’ at the rhetorical level suggests a need to shift our academic attention towards developing more appropriate analytical frameworks for examining alternative strategies for countering terrorism. This paper seeks to explore what it terms an emerging risk-based approach being deployed by states. Our framework proposed here deploys the twin concepts of ‘risk bureaucracies’ and risk regulatory regimes (RRRs) in examining terrorist financing and aviation security regulations.

Journal Article 12.4: Salij, J. (2005). The significance of “ineffective” methods of fighting terrorism. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(6), 700-709.

Abstract: This article offers the thesis that the root cause of terrorism—that is, the terrorists’ mistaken beliefs—should be sought out and then cured by means of moral persuasion and that simply using justice and punishment will not change terrorists’ hearts. The author believes that applying legal methods by themselves will ultimately fail in eradicating terrorism and laments the development of genocidal techniques from 1870 onward and the arms race as well as the mistaken justification for killing civilians en masse in war. Even justifying an evil as “lesser” to prevent a greater evil is not permissible and only strengthens the immoral climate that leads to terrorists’ justification for their actions. The article concludes that terrorism is always evil and can never be justified under any circumstances.

Additional Articles

• Clauset, A., Young, M., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2007, February). On the frequency of severe terrorist events. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(1), 58-87.

• Engene, J. O. (2007). Five decades of terrorism in Europe: The TWEED dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 44(1), 109-121.

• Jordan, K. (2002, April). Providing crisis counseling to New Yorkers after the terrorist attack on the world trade center. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 10(2), 139-144.

• Jürgensen, A. (2004, February). Terrorism, civil liberties, and preventive approaches to technology: The difficult choices western societies face in the war on terrorism. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(1), 55-59.

• Kemp, M. A. (June 2008). Re-readings of the Algerian war during the US ‘war on terror’: Between recognition and Denial. Journal of European Studies, 38, 157-175.

• Morgan, J. (2002). US hate crime legislation: A legal model to avoid in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 38(1), 25-48.

• Oliverio, A., & Lauderdale, P. (2005). Terrorism as deviance or social control: Suggestions for future research. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46(1-2), 153-169.

• Shechory-Bitton, M., & Cohen-Louck, K. (2018). Does fear of terrorism differ from fear of crime and sexual assault: A question of geographical location and residential area. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(3), 806-826.

• Sullivan, P. L. (June 2007). War aims and war outcomes: Why powerful states lose limited wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(3), 496-524.

• Weedon, G. (2014). Military resisters, war resistance, and the ethics of exposure and disclosure. Cultural Studies← →Critical Methodologies, 14(4).