Type 1 terrorism or what Lizardo and Bergesen termed as ‘terror in the core’ is perpetrated by core actors against core government organizations (Bergesen et al. 2003, 163). These core- based terrorist organizations have ideological grievances against a particular core government (Bergesen et al. 2003, 166). This means that the perpetrators of this type of terrorism stand against the present state organizations in the core which they usually see as too corrupt and does not respond to the people’s needs and grievances as citizens.
Let us examine the realist and constructivist approach to anarchy. Realism focuses on the theory self preservation and that rules are created by governments to protect its people which would also help prevent conflict. However international politics can not be credited with this. (Lebow, 2007) Waltz argued that the continued lack of ‘world government’ leads to violence between states. It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation.
Terrorism has had devastating effects on the society in the past, destabilizing fundamentally strong and established gov- ernments, undermining our civilization and society, putting an end to security and peace, and balking the socio-economic development of the society. Above all, this scourge is an indictment for denial of human rights. Continual accounts of terrorist attacks can be found in the history of mankind, but not all attacks are successful. For example, the Israelis were indeed majorly affected by Palestinian terrorist attacks during the second Intifada, but these attacks turned out to be unsuccessful as they didn’t bring any major changes in the Israeli behavior, pointing out the fact that the Israelis have developed strong social resilience. Since the first advent of terrorist attacks, long queues at airports, shopping malls and social gatherings for security checks have become really common.
Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security
The non-nuclear states these days find themselves defenceless against the threats of a nuclear war. The nuclear powers have the means that, rather the overkill capability, and however they realize it tough to use it to securing their desired goals. 5. Limitations on National Power The rise of World public opinion, the codification of the law of nations and its enhanced role; a powerful movement in favour of demobilization and restriction etc. is a source of massive limitation on the national power of a state in the modern era of international relations.
Human society is becoming more lenient towards terrorism. Terrorism is very awful and these criminal should be treated different than an American citizen. In the United States constitution it does not clarify who is qualified to be protected under all of the amendments. Just because the constitution does not clarify who is protected doesn 't mean that the united states should be lenient and let terrorists off the hook. It should be as simple foreign terrorist who have committed major crimes should not be given the same rights as a U.S citizen.
Terrorism is the ruthless use of violence and threat of violence, a strategy to obtain certain purposes. It is the killing of innocent people by nongovernmental actors for different reasons- political statements, religion, ideological. (Matusitz, 2013) Researchers are interested in this topic because it is probably one of the most changeling issues for national and international security. Terrorism is linked to refugees and their status, because refugees come from the same countries or have the same religion as the ones who commit terrorist acts in the civilized world. This link between refugees and terrorism is so important and so controversial, because there is a possible correlation between them, but there is no obvious relation of causality.
As a consequence, the Middle-East has become a breeding ground for international politics, most of which is a masquerade for oil politics. Major world powers are misusing their positions to support violent terrorist groups for political means, and there has been a division of loyalty between major world powers in their approach towards terrorism. Terrorism, without a concrete definition has divided the world powers on lines of loyalty towards America or loyalty towards the nations in the geo-strategic region. Which, has only deepened international instability. However, America has claimed time and again, that there is no ambiguity in its perception of terrorism, and it has always stood against the very concept of violence.
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice. This explanation of the causes of terrorism may be difficult to swallow.
Regardless of where a noteworthy terrorist assault happens on the planet, the emotions it evokes when one knows about it are widespread - aversion, stun, fear, and instability. Instability rules in the quick result of a terrorist assault, with respect to such things as who were the culprits, how could they have been able to they plan a noteworthy assault undetected, lastly, was the fear demonstration a separated occurrence or the first of an arrangement. While the effect of terrorism on exchange may fluctuate crosswise over time and place, brutality and fighting for the most part suggest extra expenses for exchanges so that, if anything, we would expect a negative relationship between terrorist movement and the volume of exchange. All the more particularly, there are no less than three important courses in which fighting might be a block to global exchange. To start with, terrorism prompts unreliability and consequently raises the expenses of working together.