Is state terrorism fundamentally different from non-state terrorism?
State terrorism is often a neglected phenomenon in terrorism studies. Discuss how terrorism has been used as a weapon by states over the past 50 years. Is state terrorism fundamentally different from non-state terrorism?
Introduction
Within this essay I will discuss how states have used terrorism as a weapon over the past 50 to achieve strategic goals. I will then go on to discuss whether it is fundamentally different from non-state terrorism.
To start with we must understand what is meant by a weapon. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a weapon as “An instrument used in combat for the purpose of killing, injuring, or defeating an enemy.” (Britannica 2013). The Oxford English dictionary defines weapon as “An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy.” (OED 2013). It is clear from both definitions that a weapon is used in combat against an enemy to overcome them. The act is deliberate in such that it is intentional, not by accident. Therefore this essay will examine cases that terrorism is used by the state deliberately, there must be “mens rea” present.
Some states can also be defined as a failed state “A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.” (Fund for Peace 2013). If we apply the Fund for Peace definition to states using terrorism as a weapon, then states that fall within this definition cannot intentionally use terrorism a weapon as an effective government fails to exist to take the deliberate act. Somalia is a good example of a failed state where there is limited if any governmental control with no law enforcement or legitimate military
Introduction
Within this essay I will discuss how states have used terrorism as a weapon over the past 50 to achieve strategic goals. I will then go on to discuss whether it is fundamentally different from non-state terrorism.
To start with we must understand what is meant by a weapon. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a weapon as “An instrument used in combat for the purpose of killing, injuring, or defeating an enemy.” (Britannica 2013). The Oxford English dictionary defines weapon as “An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy.” (OED 2013). It is clear from both definitions that a weapon is used in combat against an enemy to overcome them. The act is deliberate in such that it is intentional, not by accident. Therefore this essay will examine cases that terrorism is used by the state deliberately, there must be “mens rea” present.
Some states can also be defined as a failed state “A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.” (Fund for Peace 2013). If we apply the Fund for Peace definition to states using terrorism as a weapon, then states that fall within this definition cannot intentionally use terrorism a weapon as an effective government fails to exist to take the deliberate act. Somalia is a good example of a failed state where there is limited if any governmental control with no law enforcement or legitimate military