Classic examples of terrorism involve murderous attacks on innocent civilians. But what about attacks on military forces, such as the USS Cole attack or the 1983 Marine Barracks attack or, for that matter, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon? It is tempting to say that calling these attacks "terrorism" represents a cynical extension of the term for political purposes. In this paper, however, I argue that calling such attacks instances of terrorism can be justified by lines of thought that engage with multiple ways in which the fate of military personnel can affect the terrorization and insecurity of civilians. The paper explores five such lines of thought. The idea is not to preclude the view that the extension of the use of "terrorism" is cynical. It often is. But that is not the only possible explanation.Download the article from SSRN at the link.
April 6, 2022
Waldron on Terrorism, Words, and Asymmetric Warfare @JeremyWaldron @nyulaw
Jeremy Waldron, NYU School of Law, has published Terrorism, Words, and Asymmetric Warfare as NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 21-52. Here is the abstract.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment