On ‘Theorising Terrorism’
| Date | 01 June 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117811404447 |
| Published date | 01 June 2011 |
| Author | Dani Nedal |
| Subject Matter | Replies |
Article
International Relations
25(2) 263–266
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117811404447
ire.sagepub.com
Corresponding author:
Dani Nedal
Email: dnedal@gmail.com
On ‘Theorising Terrorism’:
A Reply to Colin Wight
Dani Nedal
In the March 2009 issue of International Relations, Professor Colin Wight published a
very persuasive and insightful – though admittedly still tentative – attempt1 at tackling
the subject of terrorism. Wight argued that the study of terrorism is marred not only by
the fact that the term is highly politically and emotionally charged, and that most of the
information on the issue is tightly held by both terrorist groups and counter-terrorism
agencies, but also by the lack of theoretical understanding about the structural (as
opposed to what he terms psychological) causes of terrorism, and about the close rela-
tionship between this phenomenon and the historical development of the state.
Though his argument is provocative and suggests an interesting avenue for research
for critically inclined as well as more orthodox scholars, I believe Wight fails to avoid
some of the common pitfalls he warns us against. The considerations presented in this
short article regarding matters of definition and conceptualization – as well as motivation –
are intended merely as friendly critiques and caveats to drive the discussion forward.
The first, and perhaps most important, has to do with the issue of legitimacy and state
terrorism. In his article, Wight argues that:
What most studies of terrorism miss is the very fundamental point that the concept of terrorism
already implies the concept of the state. Terrorism cannot be defined in the absence of some or
other account of the state … If part of any definition of terrorism includes the notion of ‘illegitimate
force’ then the concept of ‘state terrorism’ is a contradiction in terms. Doubtless those that want
to preserve the commitment to state terrorism will object. But I believe that the Weberian dictum
is an essential part of the modern state and that terrorism always involves illegitimate violence
carried out by non-state actors. So there can be no such thing as state terrorism.2
He goes on to suggest four criteria for a minimum definition of terrorism:
– it is a form of violent political communication;
– it is always illegitimate violence;
To continue reading
Request your trial