ABSTRACT
YES: Terrorism is an equal opportunity tactic
Scott Englund and Michael Stohl
In this part of the chapter, the authors argue that states can, indeed, be terrorists. They begin by noting the very limited attention state terrorism receives at the moment in the wider literature, in spite of the well-researched use of state terror by totalitarian states. They also explain the etymological and historical sources of the word ‘terrorism’. They propose an actor-neutral definition of terrorism and argue that it can be distinguished from other forms of violence. They problematise, among others, the issue of the state’s monopoly on violence and show that it can also be abused, which de facto delegitimises state actions.
NO: State terrorism: who needs it?
Colin Wight
This part of the chapter disputes the utility of the state terrorism concept, primarily by arguing that expanding the definition of terrorism to include states would technically include most forms of states violence; therefore, such a move is too inflationary and not very helpful. Perhaps counterintuitively, the chapter also argues that the inclusion of state violence in the concept of terrorism would downplay its superior destructiveness. Furthermore, it suggests that flattening out differences between forms of violence would play into the hands of those who use an assumed prevalence of terrorism to restrict civil liberties.
