The exclusion of the State from Terrorism Studies not only hinders a comprehensive understanding of the terrorist phenomenon, but also conceals state violence.
Global governance mechanisms are inadequate to address cyberattacks outside armed conflict as these threats tend to exist in a ‘grey zone’ between peacetime and conflict.
The structure of a group can affect how criminality affects discipline and cohesion, while political aspirations can define the level of involvement in crime.
Contemporary religious terrorism is not a “new terrorism,” but instead displays similar features to previous forms of terrorism.
The expert report in the trial of Sami Osmakac is critically flawed and ultimately unfit to serve as testament to the defendant’s status as a “homegrown” terrorist.
History and more recent events have shown that a risk of abuse of emergency powers always looms, even with well-meaning executives, because reduction is not eradication.
Strategic culture analysis’ inability to properly approach non-state actors as a unit of analysis means that modern asymmetric conflicts, such as with ISIS/Daesh, are rendered incomprehensible.
The gap between the analytical tools of IR and its epistemological western framework has contributed to the failure to predict major ‘upheavals’ in the Middle East.
Although malicious cyber offenses are, and will remain, threats, the concepts of militarization, militarism and war, are of limited value for understanding cyberwar.
The crux of the spread of terrorism lies individual leaders being able to anchor terrorist groups in weak states and use modern communication technologies effectively.
