Terrorism: a philosophical discourse

Allan Orr

Defense & Security Analysis, 2013, vol. 29, issue 3, 177-187

Abstract: Though it is nigh on 12 years since 9/11, there is still no agreed definition of terrorism. Indeed, the original nations of the “Coalition of the Willing,” who previously pursued a “War on Terror” so vigorously (Australia, Britain and the USA) have come full circle now to disown entirely the very notion of a “War on Terror.” A key stumbling point towards a definition remains whether terrorism should be classified as an act of crime or of war. The two conceptualisations are philosophically and fundamentally opposed and inevitably from each flows entirely different strategic prescriptions to counter the phenomenon. If policy is to be guided adequately, let alone optimally, the philosophical arguments of each camp must be thrown headlong into one another, with the last philosophy standing the victor and then claiming the policy spoils.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14751798.2013.820608 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cdanxx:v:29:y:2013:i:3:p:177-187

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CDAN20

DOI: 10.1080/14751798.2013.820608

Access Statistics for this article

Defense & Security Analysis is currently edited by Martin Edmonds

More articles in Defense & Security Analysis from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().