Lably
Skip to content

State terrorism

Acts of terrorism conducted by a state

  • 17 min read
  • 5 chapters

Related on Lably

Through State (polity), Citizenship and Government

Lab · Class 8–12Akbar's Mughal AdministrationLab · Class 6–12The Constitution of IndiaLab · Class 6–12Sociology: Individual & SocietyLabCitizenship

Governments that are accused of using state terrorism may justify their actions as efforts to combat internal dissent, suppress insurgencies, or maintain national security, often framing their actions within the context of counterterrorism or counterinsurgency. Accused actions of state terrorism are normally also criticised as severe violations of human rights and international law.

Historically, governments have been accused of using state terrorism in various settings. The exact definition and scope of state terrorism remain controversial, as some scholars and governments argue that terrorism is a tool used exclusively by non-state actors, while others maintain that state-directed violence intended to terrorize civilian populations should also be classified as terrorism.

Definition

There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word terrorism. Some scholars believe the actions of governments can be labelled "terrorism". Using the term 'terrorism' to mean violent action used with the predominant intention of causing terror, Paul James and Jonathan Friedman distinguish between state terrorism against non-combatants and state terrorism against combatants, including "shock and awe" tactics:

"Shock and Awe" as a subcategory of "rapid dominance" is the name given to massive intervention designed to strike terror into the minds of the enemy. It is a form of state-terrorism. The concept was however developed long before the Second Gulf War by Harlan Ullman as chair of a forum of retired military personnel.

However, others, including governments, international organisations, private institutions and scholars, believe the term terrorism is applicable only to the actions of violent non-state actors. This approach is termed as an actor-centric definition which emphasizes the characteristics of the groups or individuals who use terrorism; whilst act-centric definitions emphasize the unique aspects of terrorism from other acts of violence. Historically, the term terrorism was used to refer to actions taken by governments against their own citizens whereas now it is more often perceived as targeting of non-combatants as part of a strategy directed against governments.

Historian Henry Steele Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for 'state terrorism', state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror." Most states use the term terrorism for non-state actors only.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective", and states that "terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions". The encyclopedia adds that "[e]stablishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups."

While the most common modern usage of the word terrorism refers to political violence by insurgents or conspirators, several scholars make a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism that encompasses the concepts of state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. Michael Stohl argues, "The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." Stohl clarifies, however, that "[n]ot all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim."

Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived threats", which can be directed against both domestic and foreign targets. Noam Chomsky defines state terrorism as "terrorism practised by states (or governments) and their agents and allies".

Simon Taylor provides a definition of state terrorism as "state agents using threats or acts of violence against civilians, marked by a callous indifference to human life, to instill fear in a community beyond the initial victim for the purpose of preventing a change or challenge to the status quo." These acts of violence can include both the types of state violence that some argue ought to be considered terrorism, such as: genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, disappearances, detention without trial, and torture; and more widely accepted methods of terror including bombings and targeted killings.

Stohl and George A. Lopez have designated three categories of state terrorism, based on the openness or secrecy with which the acts are performed, and whether states directly perform the acts, support them, or acquiesce to them.

Sign in to keep reading

4 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Environment

Jimmy CarterPresident of the United States from 1977 to 1981United Nations Environment ProgrammeUN environmental response agencyVulnerable speciesIUCN conservation categorySurface runoffFlow of excess rainwater not infiltrating in the ground over its surfaceCritically endangeredIUCN conservation categoryGerald FordPresident of the United States from 1974 to 1977