In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, the âwar on terrorâ, a phrase coined in September 2001 by then US President George W. Bush, has included the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the rise of al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the greatest humanitarian refugee crisis in modern history. In terms of the UK legal system, the âwar on terrorâ has led to the erosion of civil liberties and human rights. Consequently, the ârule of lawâ and due process, principles which formed the basis of the modern liberal state have been reassigned to historic abstract ideals (Maier-Katkin, Mears, & Bernard, 2009; McCulloch & Pickering, 2009; Zedner, 2007). Although centuries have passed since Enlightenment thinkers, such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, sought to uncover, minimize and banish state discourses and state practices which caused harm in pursuit of a more just, fair and equal society (Walklate, 2003), the âwar on terrorâ has necessitated the need to expose and critique harmful state practices to limit the exercise of state power and state harm to individuals. In conjunction with the âwar on terrorâ, several political developments including the refugee crisis, US President Trumpâs travel ban, the growth of the far right in Europeâmost notably in Germany, Austria, Hungry, Poland and Italyâand âBrexitâ have demonstrated the return of populist nationalism across the international sphere. The fear of nationalism has been publicly voiced with French President Emmanuel Macron using the 100th anniversary of the First World War armistice to warn of the dangers of nationalism to international harmony (Macron , 2018 cited Chrisafis, 2018). Within this changing socio-political context, the âwar on terrorâ discourse has become one of the most predominant mechanisms though which states legitimize the introduction of social control mechanisms which facilitate the marginalization and criminalization of those labelled as a threat to nationalism and the nation-state.
Aims of the Book
This book explores how state practices and state crimes have facilitated Islamist terrorism and Islamist terrorist groups, and how the âwar on terrorâ has contributed to, amongst other harms, the erosion of civil liberties, wars, mass refugees and nationalism. The book seeks to expose and critique harmful state practices and, where possible, ground these practices according to international law, domestic law, conventions and protocols, thereby making it possible to demonstrate how state crimes have facilitated terrorism in the âwar on terrorâ. When exploring state practices, the book includes law, power, ideology, foreign policy, political crime, human rights issues, and legitimate and illegitimate military, diplomatic and domestic initiatives (Barak, 1991; Friedrichs, 1998) and discourses and policies as forms of state practice. According to Ross (2000: 1), state crime includes
cover-ups, corruption, disinformation, unaccountability, violations of a domestic and/or international law, as well as those practices, although they fall short of being officially declared illegal, are perceived by the majority of the population as illegal or socially injurious.
As the definition by Ross (2000) demonstrates, populationsâ perceptions are also important and given the fundamental importance of perceptions in the radicalization process (see Chap. 2), citizensâ perceptions are included in the scope of what this book defines as state practices. Through employing a perspective which includes individualsâ perceptions, the book takes âthe security of the individual human beingâtheir life, livelihood, dignity, and rightsârather than that of the state as its central point of referenceâ (Moeckli, 2008: 7). The book therefore adopts a non-state centric perspective which seeks to extend the parameters of state scrutiny within the âwar on terrorâ.
By conceptualizing state practices as state crime, the book deviates from orthodox perspectives which fail to label state practices as state crime and acknowledge the violation(s) of international law, domestic law, conventions and protocols. The book also diverges from established literature on the âwar on terrorâ which has predominantly focused on how states have produced discourses and responded to acts of terrorism within the âwar on terrorâ (Jackson, 2005, 2007, 2008a), the construction of and amplification of global risk in the âwar on terrorâ (Beck, 2002; Bosworth, Bowling, & Lee, 2008; Spence, 2005; Urry, 2002), counter-terrorism legislation and policing (De Goede, 2008; Grabosky, 2008; Klausen, 2009), human rights and civil liberties (Gearty, 2005; Stohl, 2008a; Tadros, 2007), and the impact of the âwar on terrorâ on Muslim communities (Ahmed, 2015, 2016; Mythen, Walklate, & Khan, 2009). This literature has been important in revealing the impact of acts of terrorism on state practices, including state policies and legislation and the impact of such policies and legislation on communities. However, this literature has led to the âwar on terrorâ being conceptualized according to the following linear continuum:
terrorist attackâstate responseâimpact of state response on state legislation and radicalization
This construction has omitted the role of state practices and state crimes in facilitating radicalization and Islamist terrorist groups because, as Cronin (2006) states, this event-driven focus has failed to adequately explore the emergence of terrorist groups and the mechanisms, motivations, and processes which lead to terrorist attacks.
The first aim of this book is to explore how state practices and state crimes have contributed to the existence of Islamist terrorist groups and radicalization, and therefore terrorism within the âwar on terrorâ. There is a substantial body of work that can be collectively labelled as forming a âtheory of radicalizationâ that has focused on the causes of Islamist terrorism. As Chap. 2 demonstrates, this work has explored the social and temporal processes, the education and class background, the influence of religious texts and the psychological processes which influence the radicalization process (Bushman, Ridge, Das, Key, & Busath, 2007; Horgan, 2005; Sageman, 2004; Silke, 2008). There is also a growing volume of work that has explored the rise of Islamist terrorist groups, most notably AQ and ISIS (Braithwaite & Ali, 2013; Cockburn, 2015; Cronin, 2006; Weiss & Hassan, 2015). This book contributes to these areas of literature through exploring how state practices and state crimes intersect with radicalization and should therefore be included as part of a âtheory of radicalizationâ. Through exploring this fluidity, the book offers an account of how state practices and state crimes are just as important as, if not more important than, other variables in contributing to radicalization and, more specifically, the rise of terrorist organizations, like AQ and ISIS. In examining the intersectionality between Islamist ideologies, state crimes and radicalization, the book asks important questions, such as, how do state practices interact with the radicalization process? Can state crime facilitate the radicalization process? How do factors which have been defined as constituting the state facilitation of terrorism impact established factors which induce vulnerability to radicalization? And, are there state practices and state crimes which facilitate terrorism that have not previously been considered as part of a theory of radicalization? These are questions of great significance because as Habermas (2002) contends, states are actors in the radicalization process and how they respond to threats and the policies they adopt canâfor better or worseâmake a real difference. In considering the role of state practices and state crimes in creating and maintaining terrorism, the book proposes the following, more accurate, âwar on terrorâ continuum:
state practice/+ theory of radicalizationâterrorist groups/terrorismâstate response/state crime/state crime state practices
This book proposes a different understanding of the âwar on terrorâ, one whereby the reader is encouraged to explore how state practices violate international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL), and the impact of this on radicalization. Therefore, the book includes, as a central focal point, conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism and how state practices and state crimes intersect with these conditions. When discussing conditions pertaining to the growth of terrorism, the following conditions, as identified in the 2006 United Nations (UN) Global Counter-Terrorism strategy, have been included as being conducive to the spread of terrorism:
- prolonged unresolved conflicts,
- dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,
- lack of rule of law and violations of human rights,
- ethnic, national and religious discrimination,
- political exclusion,
- socio-economic marginalization, and
- lack of good governance (UN, 2018).
Although forms of analysis which consider the structural causes of non-terrorism forms of crimes are common, the role of states and structures which create mass suffering, violate human rights and so on is still omitted in explanations of terrorism. Through omitting the role of state pract...