Introduction to the Theoretical section

Now that the overview of terror listing regimes has been completed, it is possible to make the connection between these lists and theoretical components. Currently “there is no consensus on any general theoretical laws of terrorism.” (Crenshaw, 2014, p. 557) This mirrors the theoretical problems that terrorism studies experiences, therefore, this section aims to bridge the gap between the current understanding of terror listing regimes, and the theoretical considerations of International Relations. The analysis of the terror lists is based on three hypotheses. These hypotheses concern the level of observed variation after analyzing the terror lists of countries and are developed on the basis of International Relations theories.

The first, Hypothesis A, is that states will have individually exclusive lists that reflect the security interests and preferences of the state as an individual entity in the global arena.

This hypothetically means that the groups that are listed, and potentially any justification given, relates directly to state interests and national security. This would imply that the lists are created by the states to pursue raison d’état. The second hypothesis, Hypothesis B, assumes that the states have terror lists to preserve the integrity of states and statehood in a non-exclusive fashion. This means that the justification for listing the groups will be concerned with a group’s actions universally against governments and human rights throughout the world and adhering to the notion of raison de systeme. The third, Hypothesis C, assumes a mixture of the first two, that state’s terror lists will align with some states, but not all. Meaning that some states will mutually identify with certain states, but not others, and create their lists accordingly. Following this logic, the justification given for listing the groups will stem from the security concerns of allies or specific states.

These hypotheses attempt to account for the potential variation that can be observed between these lists.

The reason for including wider International Relations theories, rather than drawing from counter-terrorism or terrorism studies theories, is twofold. Firstly, there is no concrete

25

theory on the listing regimes from within these disciplines. One alternative is to draw on theories from other, neighboring disciples such as International Relations, as is the approach taken here. Secondly, since the list regimes are extensions of foreign policy and security decision making procedures, with direct implications for international politics, existing international relations theories regarding how states interact within the global system, should be applicable. The reliance on these theories, carries with it some potential pitfalls. More generally, International Relation theories will incorporate a more state-centric approach to the analysis due to their focus on the interactions among states. This is contrary to some observations of modern terrorism in a globalized context, and its transnational nature. However, counter terrorism policy is still derived from the state level, as states are the principle actors targeting terrorists. In light of this, the state-centrism of the theories is noted, but since the counter terrorism policy of the state, in the form of listing regimes is being observed, the focus of these theories is relevant. Another contribution of using these theories is that they are being checked for their continued usefulness in explaining contemporary phenomena such as counter terrorism policies.

The role of these theories, for our purpose, is to develop a lens to observe terror lists so that there is a theoretically informed base for the hypotheses. This effort at theory building, and for that purpose bridging international relations and terrorism studies, is particularly relevant since there is a lack of theory within terrorism studies that can be applied towards understanding various elements of terrorism and counter-terrorism. Essentially, “there exists no general theory of terrorism.” (Schmid, 2011, p. 202) Thus, importation of theory from corresponding fields is relevant as it provides a basis for understanding terrorism and counter-terrorism from alternative viewpoints. By applying various theories of how the international system operates there is an opportunity to understand how elements of terrorism and counter-terrorism studies fit into larger theoretical conceptions. Since

“theoretical progress in Terrorism Studies has historically been retarded by a lack of definitional consensus on the subject.” (Schmid, 2011, p. 202) the importance of understanding the subject with outside theoretical frameworks is important. Due to this lack of existing theory there is a need to establish a theoretical basis for understanding components of terrorism studies, particularly listing regimes. Since listing regimes represent a state-oriented response to terrorism, state-centric theories are applied. By using these external theories from international relations, we can view terrorism as a

26

challenge to states and examine the ways in which states respond within those larger state-centric worldview frameworks.

As mentioned, the use of these theories applies a state-centric approach to the topic of counter terrorism. While the phenomena of terrorism may not be purely state-centric, as

“terrorist groups have no interest in balancing or bandwagoning against US power”

(Richardson, 2007, p. 69), the response to terrorism is pursued at the state level. This can be seen in the various definitional problems and efforts to counter, or prevent, terrorism that states have pursued as described in the first section. Applying state-centric theories then is used not to explore the phenomena of terrorism as such, but rather allows for an inspection of the state’s counter terrorism strategies themselves, and terror lists in particular. It is acknowledged that these theories may be considered as employing more traditional theoretical approaches, however their selection has been primarily based around their explanatory potential, and their reputable nature and ability to describe other areas of international relations, is a sought-after characteristic as they are used to describe something as complex as counter terrorism policies and state listing regimes.

27