FIGHTING TERRORISM AND INTERVENTION: PARADOXES AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Abstract

The current international system emerged in the aftermath of the breakdown of the bipolar struc-ture. The new one cannot be explained in terms of the previous system's parameters. The proliferation and variation of the actors within the system; the increasing interdependency and complexity of the mutual relations have all challenged and changed the traditional concepts and explanations. These changes represent a challenge to the discipline of international relations. What is required is not just the reconceptualization of international politicsfrom a disciplinary perspective but also an interdisciplinary approach integrating among others disciplines such as law, sociology, and political science. The form and the content of the phenomena under study have changed thus stimulated new debates. The concept of “threat” for example no longer simply relates to the practices of violence between states; as a conse-quence the concept of “security” can no longer be associated exclusively with the military defense of the national territory Ian 1999: 107-126 . What could once be considered as a local threat has now become a global security issues. Among such issues are illegal arms transfers, organized crime, and drug trafficking or illegal immigration. But terrorism has become one of the most debated issues.

Keywords

• Terrorism, Fighting Terrorism, Law Enforcement, Military Intervention

References

1. Ahmad Eqbal, “Terrorism: Theirs and Ours”, in Russel D. Howard. Alexander Y., “Introduction”, International Terrorism: National, Regional and Global Perspectives, Praeger Publishers, New York. Annan Kofi, (1999), The Question of Intervention: Statements by the Secretary-General, UN Publica-tions, New York.
2. Bigo D., (1996), Polices en réseaux, L'expérience européenne, Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politique, Paris.
3. Boer Monica Den, (2003), “9/11 and the Europeanisation of Anti-terrorism
4. Policy: A Critical Assess-ment”, Notre Europe, Policy Paper No.6. Boniface Pascal, Hassner Pierre, (2002), “Regards Croisés: Reflexions cri- tiques sur la scène internatio-nale”, (La Revue Internationale et Stratégique).
5. Brugière J.L., (1996), “La menace terroriste”, Défense nationale.
6. Carothers Thomas, (2003), “Promoting Democracy and Fighting, (La Revue Internationale et Stratégique).
7. Carte Donald, (2001-02), “Asymmetric Warfare and the use of Special operations forces in North American Law enforcement”, Canadian Military Journal.
8. Chagnollaud J.P., (1997), Relations internationales contemporaines, L'Harmattan, Paris.

9. Chomsky Noam, “Rogue States”, Zmagazine, www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html.
10. Dempsey Gary T., (2002), “Old Folly in a New Disguise. Nation Building to Combat Terrorism”, Po-litical Analysis.
11. Evans Gareth, Sahnoun Mohamed, (2002), “The responsibility to Protect”, Foreign Affairs.
12. Ganor Boaz, “Defining Terrorism: Is One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter?”, www.ict.org.il/articles/researchdet.cfm?researchid=4. Gray Colin S., (2002), “Thinking Asymmetrical in Time of Terror”, Parameters.
13. Gunaratna Rohan, (2001) “Terrorist trends suggest shift of focus to nation- al activities”, Janes Intelligence Review.
14. Haass Richard N., (1999), Intervention: The Use of American Military
15. Force in the Post-Cold War World, The Brooking Institution, Washington DC. Habif Catherine Bourgues, (2000), “Le Terrorisme international”, in
16. H.Ascensio, E. Decaux, A. Pellet, Droit Internationale Penal, Pedone, Paris. Helton Arthur C., (2000), “Forced Displacement, Humanitarian
17. Intervention, and Souverenty”, SAIS Review. Higgins R., (1976-77), “Derogations under Human Rights Treaties”, BYIL.
18. Hoffman Bruce, (2003), “Defining Terrorism”, in Russel D. Howard, Reid
19. L. Sawyer, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, Understanding the New Security Environment, Readings and Interpretations, McGraw- Hill/Dushkin. Ian, (1999), Globalisation and International Relation Theory, Oxford
20. University Press, New York. Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale (IHEDN), (1999), “Les
21. Fragilités de l'Europe face au terrorisme”, 51ème session nationale, Comité No:2, Rapport de 2ème phase. Khan Ali, (1987), “A Legal Theory of International Terrorism”
22. Connecticut Law Review http://classes.washburnlaw.edu/khan/publications/19CLR945.htm Legault Albert , Fortmann Michel(Dir.), (2001), “Les Conflits dans le monde 2000-2001, Rapport annuel sur les conflits internationaux”, Etudes
23. Strategiques et Militaires, Quebec. Lynch Timothy, (2002), “Breaking the Vicious Cycle Preserving Our
24. Liberties While Fighting Terrorism”, Policy Analysis. Maisonneuve E., (1997), “La Violence qui Vient, Essai sur la Guerre
25. Moderne”, Arlea, Paris. Merari Ariel, (1993), “Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency”, Terrorism and Political Violence.
26. Metz Steven, (2003), “La guerre asymétrique et l'avenir de l'occident”, Politique étrangère.
27. Nye Joseph, (2003), The Paradox of American Power, Oxford University Press.
28. Ortega Martin, (2001), “L'intervention militaire et l'Union militaire”, Cahier de Chaillot.
29. Schmid Alex P., Albert J. Jongman et all. (1988) Political Terorism: A
30. New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literatures, New Brunswick, Transaction Books. Sommier I.,(2000) Le Terrorisme, Dominos Flammarion, Paris.
31. Sommier I., (2002), “Terrorisme as Total Violence”, UNESCO.
32. Tanca Antonio, (1990), “ Human Rights, Terrorism and Police Custody
33. The Brogan Case”, European Journal of International Law, Vol.1, No.1/2, www.ejil.org/journal/Vol11/No1/art16.html Touraine M., (1995), Le Bouleversement du Monde, Géopolitique du
34. XXIème Siècle, Editions du seuil, Paris. Tures John A., (2002), “The Dearth of Jointly Dyadic Democratic
35. Interventions”, International Studies Quarterly. Wilkinson Paul, (1977), Terrorism and Liberal State, The Macmillan Press, London.
36. Von Hippel Karrin, (2000), “Democracy by Force: A Renewed Commitment to Nation Bulding”,The Washington Quarterly.