New Terrorism has been a highly regarded theory in the field of terrorism since the late 1990s, but how accurate is it in regards to European terrorism in 2010-2018? Are terrorists more lethal, primarily religious, part of transnational and decentralized organizations, and are they using CBRN-weapons? This paper uses a quantitative study, with a descriptive and retroductive approach, of all terror attacks in Europe 2010- 2018, to examine New Terrorisms’ validity, and propose possible changes to the theory.
I find that New Terrorism is partly correct. Terror groups are primarily transnational and non-hierarchical and lethality is higher than in the early 90s, although less so in Western Europe. Separatist groups are however found to be the most common type of movement, followed by ideological movements – responsible for 4 and 2 times as many terror attacks as religious groups. Likewise, the potential threat of terrorists using CBRN-weapons for mass destruction is found to be incorrect. Based on this, New Terrorism 2.0, Europe edition is proposed. Stating that separatist and ideological groups are the most common, lethality is high (but less so in Western Europe), organizations are primarily transnational and non-hierarchical, and the risk of terrorist using CBRN-weapons is low in contemporary European terrorism.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND PURPOSE
1.3 STRUCTURE
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 TERRORISM
2.2 NEW TERRORISM
2.2.1 Type of Movement
2.2.2 Lethality
2.2.3 Structure
2.2.4 CBRN-Weapons
2.3 HYPOTHESES
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.2 DATA COLLECTION
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS
4. RESULTS
4.1 Type of movement
4.2 Lethality
4.3 Structure
4.4 CBRN-Weapons
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Type of movement
5.2 Lethality
5.3 Structure
5.4 CBRN-Weapons
5.5 European terrorism and New Terrorism 2.0, Europe edition
6. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the validity and applicability of the "New Terrorism" theory in the context of European terrorism between 2010 and 2018. Through a quantitative analysis of terrorist attacks, the study evaluates whether contemporary European terrorism aligns with the theoretical characteristics of increased lethality, religious motivation, decentralized organizational structures, and the use of weapons of mass destruction.
- Empirical assessment of the "New Terrorism" theory in a modern European context.
- Comparative analysis of regional differences between Western and Eastern Europe.
- Quantitative investigation into the type of movement, lethality, and organizational structure of active terror groups.
- Evaluation of the actual threat level posed by CBRN-weapons in contemporary terrorism.
- Proposal for an updated "New Terrorism 2.0" framework for European studies.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.1 Type of Movement
The first cornerstone of New Terrorism is the argument that religious terrorism has become the most common type of terrorist movement (Neumann 2009: 23-24). It´s put forward since for much of the 20th century the most common terrorist movement was either left-wing extremist, far-right/nationalist or separatists. Nationalistic right-wing groups attacked immigrants, asylum-seekers, and guest workers with the goal of more ethnically homogeneous home countries (Laqueur 1999: 120). On the opposite side Marxist, anarchist, and other left-wing groups fought with the aim of ending capitalism and neo-liberal interference. In addition, separatist groups like ETA and IRA used terror in their pursuit of national liberation (Crenshaw 2008: 29)(Hoffman 2006: 232- 233).
Since then a shift has occurred according to proponents of New Terrorism (Hoffman 1999: 15). The claim is based on the fact that since the 1980s religious terrorism has been on the rise at the same time as left-wing, right-wing, and separatist terror has been on the decline (Neumann 2009: 23-24)(Gurr & Cole, 2000). In 2004 around half of the active terror groups were labeled religious while 28% were considered left-wing and 24% nationalist or separatist (Hoffman 2006: 85-86).
The rise of religious terrorism has partly been attributed to the creation of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution, spreading political Islam around the globe (Rapaport 2001: 441-442)(Neumann 2009: 106-115). But more importantly to the large societal shifts in the last decades. Increasing globalization, secularism, modernity, and migration are argued to cause feelings of anxiety and existential threat, plus economic and cultural segregation - especially for Muslim diasporas in the west (Ibid 80-101). Subsequently, many who feel left behind turn to religion because of its moral and ethical critique of power, it providing meaning and a blueprint for a new society (Noor 2002: 161). Most religious groups are peaceful, but some outliers are not. When peaceful means fail to bring about change some turn to those outliers, often attracted by the fact that religion can legitimize violence by providing a higher purpose for it (Neumann 2009: 96-101), making religion a strong motivator for terror.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the background of New Terrorism theory and defines the research question regarding its applicability to European terrorism between 2010-2018.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: Defines the concept of terrorism and details the four key pillars of the New Terrorism theory, concluding with the formulation of testable hypotheses.
3. METHODOLOGY: Describes the comparative, quantitative Large-N research design and the data collection process using the Global Terrorism Database.
4. RESULTS: Presents the statistical findings regarding movement types, lethality, organizational structure, and the usage of CBRN-weapons across European regions.
5. DISCUSSION: Analyzes the empirical results against the hypotheses, explaining discrepancies and proposing a "New Terrorism 2.0" framework for Europe.
6. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the final results, confirming that while some aspects of New Terrorism persist, the theory requires significant regional updates regarding movement types and the threat of CBRN-weapons.
Keywords
New Terrorism, Europe, CBRN-weapons, Religious terrorism, Lethality, Separatist terrorism, Political violence, Organizational structure, Transnationalism, Quantitative research, Ideological movements, Radicalization, Counter-terrorism, Global Terrorism Database, Mass-casualty attacks
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The research examines the validity and applicability of the "New Terrorism" theory specifically within the context of European terrorism during the 2010-2018 period.
What are the primary themes analyzed in the study?
The study focuses on four pillars of New Terrorism: the type of movement, the level of lethality, the organizational structure of terror groups, and the potential threat of CBRN-weapon usage.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks: "How does the theory of New Terrorism align with terrorism in Europe 2010-2018?"
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a quantitative, Large-N descriptive study, comparing theoretical assumptions against empirical data gathered primarily from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD).
What topics are covered in the main body of the thesis?
The body covers a critical review of the theoretical framework, a detailed methodology section, the presentation of empirical results, and a discussion where the author reinterprets the theory for a European context.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include New Terrorism, Europe, CBRN-weapons, Religious terrorism, Lethality, Separatist terrorism, and transnationalism.
Why did the author identify a discrepancy regarding religious terrorism?
Contrary to the New Terrorism theory which posits religious terrorism as the most dominant form, the data showed that separatist and ideological movements were significantly more prevalent in Europe during the studied period.
What conclusion does the author draw about CBRN-weapons?
The author concludes that the threat of CBRN-weapons being used for mass destruction in Europe is very low and that the original predictions from the 1990s have not materialized as expected.
What is the proposal for "New Terrorism 2.0, Europe edition"?
It is an updated theoretical framework that emphasizes the dominance of separatist and ideological movements, differentiates lethality levels between Western and Eastern Europe, and acknowledges the low actual risk of CBRN-weapons usage.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Henrik Lindholm (Autor:in), 2020, A Eurocentric Study of New Terrorism, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/907861
