Abstract
Young and Dugan (2011) attempted to provide a different perspective to explain the puzzle of why democracies are more likely to be main targets of terrorist with veto player framework. However, they include autocracies and examine international terrorism in addition to domestic one. In this paper, I exclude international terrorism and focus only on democracies to understand if Young and Dugan (2011) really explains this puzzle. The alternative hypothesis is created based on the same theoretical framework and is tested by using GTD. The results on veto player in my study is and is not significant unlike to Young and Dugan’s (2011) finding. Although Young and Dugan (2011) explain the terrorism with veto player framework in autocracies,
…show more content…
Yet, in addition to these shocking transnational attacks, domestic terrorism seems to be underemphasized although it causes more casualties and greater damage than transnational terrorism in the long term. Democracies are among the countries suffering from both domestic or transnational terrorism and their long term consequences. In particular, Turkey, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Italy suffered from domestic terrorism for many years and still struggle with the damaging consequences. Yet, while some democracies are targets of terrorism, it is not a problem for all democracies. This phenomenon raises the research question for this paper: Why are some democracies targets of terrorism and others are not?
Prior research provides competing arguments to answer this puzzle. In particular, previous studies discuss the effect of the level of democracy (Eubank and Weinberg 2001), democratic competition (Chenoweth 2010) or democratic participation (Li 2005), and low threshold of cost of violence in democracies (Pape, 2003) to explain why one nation becomes a target. In addition to these studies, Young and Dugan (2011) approaches this question from a policy-based perspective, and use veto player theory to understand the differences among democracies in terms of their number of terrorist
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
Australia is a bicameral federation Parliamentary democracy. Power is divided between the Commonwealth federal government and the six state governments. The Federal Parliament, or the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, is the legislative branch. The Queen (represented by the Governor-General), the Senate (Upper House) and the House of Representatives (Lower House) make up the Federal Parliament. The Federal Parliament includes two separate chambers: The House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate represent the six States and the two self-governing Territories while the members of the House represent electoral divisions according to population. The House of Representatives consists of 150 members, each elected from single member
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
This problem is a direct result of the “gray areas” that make it difficult to tell the difference between a common crime and a political crime. It combines the two acts into one, blurring the line of distinction (Anderson). The government being attacked sees it as a common criminal attack on its sovereignty, while the terrorist sees it as a legitimate means to an end. The government behind which the terrorist is trying to...
This essay will answer this question through a variety of means. In order to measure the question posed, we must first define the concepts of democracy, international peace and security. After having defined these, we must apply the promotion of democracy, using examples from the past to consider whether this is a worthwhile endeavour, and if so, how should we approach it to ensure we achieve what we set out to. This essay will give reference to, but will not provide a comprehensive analysis of, the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’.
Such situation can be threatening to national security due to the exposure of all of its internal weaknesses, which the enemy takes advantages of. Democratic system of government ensures equality, and freedom for everyone while preventing exploitation and corruption, and as a return, the civilians are obligated to fulfill their responsibilities towards the country. Basically, Democracy is a bond that binds everyone regardless of beliefs and view towards issues. A short story titled “Three Sons and a Bundle of Sticks” effectively demonstrates the power of democracy. Similar to the story, it is easier to break a nation when its divided, but unity creates a force of
Intro: US Presidents have made it a goal during their term(s) in office to establish good relationships with foreign countries and even try to improve upon existing connections with our allies. Some believe it is to prevent conflicts between the countries, while others dispute that it is a threat assessment by the United States to pick and choose their friends and enemies. Preventing conflict between two democracies or countries that practice democracy is called Democratic Peace Theory. However, research has begun to show that Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective and needs to be brought to an end as a model for how international relations are formed or destroyed. Democratic Peace Theory needs to be abolished as a support for forming foreign policy between democracies because of the burden placed on both parties to come to an agreement but still stand proud and victorious as a country without conceding anything.
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
A few of the recognisable ones are; Liberalism, Conservatism, Capitalism and Socialism. The prevalence of some of these ideologies, in particular socialism, are diminishing because of the immense diversity of ethics spread around the globe. The following essay will argue that in the 21st Century socialism has been superseded by terrorism, and that terrorism is the threat that socialism once was during the Cold War. It will do this by firstly discussing and outlining socialism and terrorism and then putting forward the argument that socialism was prevalent up to a certain point. Yet now terrorism has risen in dominance.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
...a voice and a choice. They have the feeling of being secure and free something which is only achieved through national security. Democracies also share similar beliefs and political ideologies which prevent them from engaging in warfare in the event of an arising conflict. The democratic peace theory states that democratic countries do not engage in interstate wars against each other. This theory has been proven true from time and time again in history. There has never been a case of an independent democratic country raging war on another democratic regime. So definitely when it comes to solving conflict through war regime type does matter since democratic states are 99 percent less likely to engage in a fight with autocracies and 100 prevent less likely to declare war on fellow democracy. Democracy is a preventer of conflict on all levels of human interactions.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,