As a student of political science, who participated in the course United Nations International
Student Conference of Amsterdam (UNISCA). I am supposed to write a final essay. This final
essay is expected to combine the scientific perspectives from the syllabi during the
preparation with the practical perspective that I gained in the actual conference.
In this simulation of the policy process in the United Nations (UN) I obtained the role of an
Israeli ambassador, who had to cope with the issues of international terrorism, right to selfdetermination
and the peaceful use of outer space in the 1st Committee.
Due to the events of 11th September, that might become a turning point in history, as many
believe, most of the time and negotiations in the 1st committee were devoted to the issue of
international terrorism during the conference. It therefore seems logical to me that I dedicate
my paper to this topic that struck fear in the hearts of million people in the entire western
world, confronting us with new global cleavages, alliances, and a shift toward security at the
expense of individual freedom. Though the course-material regarding international terrorism
was collected before the terrorist attack on the USA on 11th September, and certainly needs to
be updated and re-evaluated, it provides the reader with a general insight on that matter. In the
academic sphere, problems can be defined, analysed and eventually successfully solved. But
on the other hand it is the sphere of politics that mainly has to deal with problems. There are
other rules in the political realm endemic than in the scientific world. These political rules basically reflect relations of power and therefore cannot solve problems ‘easily’ like in the
academic realm. [...]
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. What is the academic approach on international terrorism?
III. What is the political approach on international terrorism?
IV. What are the most striking differences between both views?
V. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay examines the fundamental gap between academic theories regarding international terrorism and the practical reality of political decision-making processes. Using the author's experience as a delegate at the United Nations International Student Conference of Amsterdam (UNISCA) as a case study, the work explores how political constraints, power relations, and competing state interests often impede the implementation of optimal, science-based security solutions.
- Comparison of academic analytical frameworks versus political negotiation realities.
- Evaluation of the impact of the 11th September attacks on global political landscapes.
- Analysis of the policy-making process within a simulation of UN committee structures.
- Discussion of the influence of power, interest groups, and bureaucracy on security policies.
- Investigation into the potential for narrowing the disconnect between scholarly research and policy implementation.
Excerpt from the Book
III. WHAT IS THE POLITICAL APPROACH ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM?
During the UNISCA-conference participants represented a UN-member and were challenged by a different view on the issue, the political one that consist of power-relations and negotiations between states and non-state actors. Playing the role of an Israeli ambassador, who was a member of the 1st committee, I had to cope, amongst other issues, with the problem of international terrorism once again.
Allocated to the NATO and it’s allies I had to introduce the Israeli draft resolution on that matter, and to convince them of the Israeli point of view by contributing as much as possible own perambulatory and operative clauses with the drafts of other countries into a new and broader (i.e. with more co-submitters) draft resolution. This merging process took place within the rules of formal and informal lobbying. Under lobbying we understand the conversations between mainly delegates, in order to gain support for their ideas in their respective resolutions, or for their country in general. This can be done in reserved sections (formal) or at lunch-breaks or many other places (informal). To succeed in adopting a final resolution, a flexible attitude from the delegates involved is necessary. Making compromises will require the acceptance of other clauses at the expense of his own ones. So, to a certain extent (that is compatible with the countries political position on an issue, of course), own policies have to be sacrificed. The loss of ‘own’ clauses is even more striking when the topic comes up in a formal debate in the UN- General Assembly when the whole number of actors is present and has to vote on that issue.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: The author outlines the research goal of bridging the gap between academic theory and political reality, framed by his experiences at the UNISCA conference following the events of 11th September.
II. What is the academic approach on international terrorism?: This chapter reviews scientific literature and lectures that attempt to categorize, analyze, and offer prospective solutions to terrorism through theoretical models and sociological concepts.
III. What is the political approach on international terrorism?: The author describes the practical negotiation process at the UNISCA conference, highlighting how political power dynamics and the need for consensus often dilute or alter idealized policy proposals.
IV. What are the most striking differences between both views?: This section synthesizes the findings, arguing that the academic sphere seeks optimal, logic-based solutions, while the political sphere is governed by compromise, self-interest, and the constraints of power.
V. Conclusion: The author concludes that both spheres are currently disconnected and suggests that future security effectiveness requires the academic world to become more politically engaged and the political world to become more empirically grounded.
Keywords
International Terrorism, UNISCA, Political Science, Policy-making, Academic Research, Diplomatic Negotiation, Security Measures, Power Relations, Conflict Resolution, Globalization, Samuel D. Huntington, UN General Assembly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the structural and functional differences between the way academics analyze international terrorism and the way political entities, such as the United Nations, practically address it through policy-making and negotiation.
What are the central thematic fields addressed?
The work covers political science theory, international relations, policy-making processes, the socio-economic impacts of terrorism, and the challenges of achieving international consensus.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The objective is to identify why there is a significant gap between scientific recommendations for security and the actual policies implemented by states, ultimately proposing that both realms must better integrate their approaches.
Which scientific method is utilized in the study?
The study employs a case-study approach based on the author's participation in the UNISCA conference, combined with a comparative analysis of academic literature and political documents like draft resolutions.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body examines academic perspectives (including Huntington’s 'Clash of Civilizations'), the mechanics of lobbying in UN committees, and the influence of interest groups and bureaucratic structures on public policy.
How would you characterize this work?
This work is characterized by terms such as political realism, policy-making analysis, international security, and the intersection of academia and statecraft.
How did the 11th September attacks influence the author’s perspective?
The attacks serve as a primary catalyst for the study, demonstrating to the author the urgent need for a more effective alignment between theoretical analysis and rapid, real-world political response.
What does the author conclude about the 'political game'?
The author concludes that the political game is inherently driven by power, compromise, and national interest, which often makes it difficult to adopt the 'optimal' scientific solutions proposed by academics.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Lutz Lindenau (Autor:in), 2001, What are the differences between the academic and the political view on international terrorism?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/18767
