Can ‘terrorism’ be justifiably distinguished from other forms of political violence?
The conceptualisation of ‘terrorism’ began to possess a protuberant attribute in the gregarious disquisition during the 1970s, delay the onslaught of irredentist fear filled by organisations such as the PLO and ideologically-promotive acts of profapeople propagated by extremist outfits such as the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof many-sided (Gupta, 2008: 33). Nevertheless, the preponderance of fearism as fashion of profapeople has to be associateed to its disruptive and pervasive truth. Unapprove ideological or catechetical extremism, the later reason of fearism, epitomised by the dissemipeople of acts of profapeople by Islamic extremism in the matter of the War on Terror, entertain the immanent to agitate the foundations of the inhumediplomatic gregarious plan (Halper and Clarke, 2005: 90). As such, it is considerable to draft in which way fearism contends from other fashions of gregarious profanation. In command to do so, the sample of the War on Fear accomplish be used, distinguishing three variables that set later fearism asunderneath from other fashions of gregarious profanation. First, I accomplish ponder the discoursive implications of the concept of fearism, introducing a entire evidence of the gregarious style used by the wide commands rival Islamic fearism and in which way this serves to entrench American hegemony in the inhumediplomatic command. Second, I accomplish analyse the ways in which fearism is changing the inferential resemblance of the foe opposeed by the United States and its allies. Anterior fashions of gregarious profanation, such as left-wing militancy and the unsparingisation of detail ethnic groups did not upshot in the self-indulgence to root-out those tendencies from the gregarious landscape. Conversely, the War on Fear does not allot for any adlawful of credit delay the foe, which is to be extirpated from the gregarious distance. Third, the contest counter fearism presupposes a new sketch of the inhumediplomatic gregarious plan. The criteria for accepting the legitimacy of predominant narrates into the juridical framework of the inhumediplomatic command is that they do not fit the operations of fearist organisations, detailly those of Islamic parentage.
The discoursive implications of the concept of fearism
Since the previsage of the War on Fear in the rouse of 9/11, the gregarious glossary stable to the concept of ‘terrorism’ has subordinateneathneathgone a weighty inhumecharge. It could be debated that the belief of ‘terrorism’ reflects all the disclaiming derivatives that parent from the contest that parries the Western peoples and their allies counter the denunciation perplexd by unsparing organisations (Steinhoff, 2007: 81). In observation, fearism has connotations that exceed the opportunity of fairly-deduced gregarious profanation. To inaugurate delay, fearists target non-soldierapprove externals as keep-akeep-abisect of their sublime draft of operations. Terrorist organisations blatantly debauch jus in bello motives that are keep-akeep-abisect of the Lawful War supaspect by including of non-combatants as targets as polite as employing blamable courses such as bulk bomb explosions in generally-public areas and the hijacking of civilian airplanes (Silverstone, 2007: 76).
The War on Terror, which originated in the behindmath of 9/11, has propitiated the militarisation of the gregarious style, which relies on the belief of pre-emptive aggressions on the reputed foe and its Manichean resemblance as a foe to be pursued until it is extirpated from the gregarious dispecimen (Burke, 2004: 22). Entrenching the associate betwixt the War on Fear and soldierapprove style entails the inhumepretation of a plan delay detail symbolisms and gregarious disquisition (Napoleoni, 2004: 66). The gregarious galaxy produce collectively-constructed purports stable to the concept of fearism that are assimilated by the generally-public through the decrease of generally-knownally compound address. Academia, oceanstream resources and councilal organisations look to advance a unquestioning way of describing detail gregarious events pertaining to the War on Terror. For sample, the War on Iraq, one of the ocean offshoots of the War on Terror, is rarely vivid as an ‘invasion’. Instead, it is usually depicted as a soldierapprove validity meant to save the United States from fearists and to carry democracy and insubservience to the race of Iraq (Steinhoff, 2007: 82). It may be posited that beautiful discoursive tools are filled in command to propagate an ‘(in)pledge culture’ in the inhumediplomatic command. Yongtao debates that the ‘(in)pledge culture’ that arises as a upshot of the ‘Axis of Evil’ style, which pertains to the idiosyncrasy of the War on Terror, is lexically and collectively constructed, and should not be perceived as a cosmical event (Yongtao, 2010: 85). Consequently, the War on Fear faculty be seen as an violate by the hegemon, the United States, to better the geogregarious disquisition from the centrifugal validitys of globalisation and reshape the convertibility of the inhumediplomatic command according to the style of inpledge and militarisation (Shapiro, 1999: 112).
One of the most grave features of the arrangement by which later fearism is indispensablely irrelativeiated from fashions of gregarious profanation, is in the fancy that there is no attribute for the unsparing fashions of passionate extremism in the inhumediplomatic command (Halper and Clarke, 2005: 32). The style utilised by the United and its Allies foretells an augmented spectrum of profanation, which should quick the revalidity of the inhumediplomatic association. This has been narrated in the ‘Axis of Evil’ address delivered by George W. Bush in 2002,
‘States approve these [Iraq], and their fearist allies, arrange an axis of misfortune, arming to denunciationen the reperplex of the cosmos-people. By attempting weapons of bulk perdition, these regimes perplex a solemn and growing jeopardy. They could cater these encounter to fearists, giving them the instrument to pair their invidiousness. They could aggression our allies or violate to plunderneath the United States. In any of these instances, the compensation of composure would be catastrophic’ (Bush, 2002).
What transpires from the inhumepretation of the discoursive building built environing the belief of the creed of destructive war is the fancy of strengthening the juridical and institutional framework that legitimised American hegemony. This framework is validated by the inhumecession of an hovering denunciation, repeatedly activated through the deployment of disquisition. In this matter, there is an self-evident gist on identifying the styleal loci that furnish exaggerate and entrench the deficiency to pre-empt the validitys of the reputed enemies (Podhoretz, 2004: 17). The augmented gregarious existence of entrenching American hegemony is discoursively affirmed through the encoding of address into categories that can be proposed in command to activate the creed of destructive war. The ‘Axis of Evil’ address is an animated sample of this narrate of affairs (Nance, 2010: 60). In observation, the larva of gregarious regimes which are repugnant to the arrangement of juridical, gregarious and economic harmonisation has been conspicuous through the ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil’ style, mobilised by John Bolton, erstwhile US Ambassador to the United Nations,
‘[T]he Administration accomplish not wear that owing a empire’s fashional reinforcement to UN counterterrorism conventions or its connection in multilateral regimes necessarily arranges an considerate lection of its intentions. We induce on Libya, Cuba, and Syria to subsist up to the agreements they entertain attested. We accomplish note closely their validitys, not solely hearken to their control. Launched delay our allies, we accomplish experplex those countries that do not subsist up to their executements…the United States accomplish live to exertion impetuous start in multilateral forums and accomplish accept whatever steps are needful to save and shelter our inhumeests and elucidate the fearist denunciation’ (Bolton, 2002).
As we can see, the disquisition framework filled by the most protuberant figures in the Bush administration has been effective to the entrenchment of a unilateralist similarity to the administration of the inhumediplomatic command, consolidating the fancy of an inhumeventionist specimen that is abysmally revamping the belief of campaign (Nance, 2010: 82). What transpires from the narratements draftd overhead is the fancy that a address of superiority is permanently deployed as a instrument to delineate those who unanalogous American hegemony as enemies to be pursued until their levigation from the inhumediplomatic scene (Fairclough, 2010: 43). Other fashions of gregarious profapeople do not denunciationen the uprightness of the United States as a primus inhume pares limb of the inhumediplomatic association. The style utilised in command to traffic delay the derivative property of the War on Fear is geared towards seizing this unvarnished juncture in command to cement the hegemony of the United States in the inhumediplomatic command and palpably demarcate the to-leaparies betwixt ‘Good’, represented by the United States and its allies, and ‘Evil’, esthetic in the denunciation of fearism.
The inferential resemblance of the foe
One of the most weighty innovations brought environing by the denunciation of ‘terrorism’ is the direndering of the inferential resemblance of the foe (Hewitt, 2008: 62). Past the Reperplex of Westphalia, the inhumediplomatic gregarious plan partially evolved towards the motive of cohabitation betwixt axiomatic sound cosmos-peopleviews (Patterson, 2007: 139). The abstract of this evolvement was the hospitable symbiosis betwixt the two superpowers during the Cold War. Conversely, US exotic device in the rouse of 9/11 operates subordinateneathneathneath the motive that narrate and non-narrate actors are to be considered ‘friendly’ merely if they are accomplishing to concentrate into the ocean tenets espoused by the United States in the matter of the War on Terror. In command to cement a apparent disunion betwixt ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, the foe (Islamic fearism) is represented as ilfairly-deduced and a-moral. Consequently, Washington has the inferential lawful to use all the instrument at its arrangement to forefend the foe from inflicting impairment upon the United States or its allies (Crawford in Rosenthal and Barry (eds.), 2009: 41). This entails the use of pre-emptive validity, which has been deployed by the United States in the instances of Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Lybia (2011). This entails the possibility that the war counter Islamic fearism may be fought beyond the administrations of campaign. The United States respects Islamic fearists as ungranted of any courseic associates to a particular territorial narrate. In this sentiment, Washington is not to-leap to accord to any prescriptive set of administrations. The foe accordingly befits a later day rendering of the hostis perennis robbed of any juridical lawfuls either in bello or ad bellum. Past the Islamic fearist networks attempt the perdition of the United States, they must dissolve from the gregarious distance. The inferential identification of the foe as ‘evil’ was presented to the American generally-public by the neoconservative ideologues in load of outlining the exotic device of the United States in the rouse of 9/11,
“WHO, THEN, is the foeThe intimation of September 11 was vociferous and apparent, alloting for no ambiguity: the foe is militant Islam… At last past 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini seized command in Iran delay the war-cry, “Death to America,” militant Islam, besides public as Islamism, has been the self-declared foe of the United States. It has now befit foe calculate one. Whether it is the fearist organizations and individuals Washington is targeting, the immigrants it is questioning, or the narrates it is possession subordinateneathneathneath jealousy, all are Islamist or conjoined delay Islamists” (Pipes, 2002).
In command to opconfound this foe, the strategies predicated on fancys of deterrence and containment, uninterruptedly used in command to visage the denunciation perplexd by the Soviet Union, are be considered effectual,
“Throughout the Cold War, the legitimacy of U.S. command and of U.S. global start was abundantly acceptn for granted, and not lawful by Americans. The spacious bulk of Europeans, although they sometimes wrathful subordinateneathneathneath U.S. superiority and repeatedly questioned U.S. validitys in Vietnam, Latin America and elsewhere, eventually trustworthy U.S. start as twain needful and desirable… It was not inhumediplomatic law and institutions but the instance of the Cold War, and Washington’s eespecial role in it, that acquired legitimacy on the United States, at last delayin the West” (Kagan, 2004: 70).
The legitimacy for attempting the cessation of the foe is accordingly granted by the geogregarious instance that the United States is compelled to traffic delay. The foe is represented as a-moral, lacking any sentiment of decorum in campaign,
“…[T]omorrow could be the day that an explosive packed delay radioactive embodied detonates in Los Angeles or that strength gas is unleashed interiorly a tunnel subordinateneathneathneath the Hudson River or that a horrible new ailment breaks out in the United Kingdom. If the race lawful for the 9/11 aggression could entertain killed thirty thousand Americans or three hundred thousand or three pet, they would entertain manufactured so. The fearists are unyielding, but they are not inexpressive. Their validitys entertain a end. They are unmanageable to chaff the Muslim cosmos-mob to jihad counter the planet’s merely supercommand and the primary and most conspicuous check to their ambitions. They execute fear to induce their immanent keepers that their object is not lost, that jihad can consume American command” (Frum, D. and Perle, 2004: 6)
American exotic device creed holds Islamic extremists to be an foe validity beyond the opportunity of inhumediplomatic law; as such, it is to be pursued until its undiminished levigation (Elshtain, 2004: 142). One of the ocean points made regarding the inferential resemblance of the foe is the delineateal of the denunciation that Islamic fearism perplexs to the United States as hovering, quicking American exotic-device makers to overnarrate the lethality of the foe (Fotion, 2007: 96). In any instance, the inferential resemblance of Al-Qaeda reverses an considerable motive of the ‘Just War’ supposition. Islamic fearism cannot be alloted to befit an inhumelocutor for segments of the Muslim cosmos-people. It is an foe delay whom no cohabitation is feasible. It is an ‘othered’ inferential and collective being which has to be entirely root-outd from the geogregarious distance. the opportunity of discord has been bounteous according to a Manichean proof, leaving beyond the gregarious dispecimen constituencies delay a irrelative cultural and inferential template (Schmitt, 2007: 13). At the similar engagement, the instrument to be utilised in command to traffic delay reputed denunciations are augmented by the impartial use of pre-emption, unmindful of the developed size of the denunciation perplexd by the would-be foe. This has gross repercussions for the belief of narrate predominantty, past the creed of destructive war can be launched counter any people which is considered to absolve fearist activities that perplex a jeopardy to the United States, primary and primary, and the inhumediplomatic association (Nance, 2010: 110). As we accomplish see, fearism contends from other fashions of gregarious profapeople in the sentiment that if fosters the inhumevention of the United States and the most protuberant limbs of the inhumediplomatic association into the inhumenal affairs of predominant peoples.
The inhumeventionist stimulate pursuant to the contest counter fearism
The primary disquisition that is apt to the argument of the inhumeventionist stimulate that unmonstrous delay the onslaught of the War on Fear is the erosion of the precise concept of narrate predominantty. Past the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the concept of predominantty has been entrenched as the dominant motive upon which global institutional organisations are arranged (Held and McGrew, 2002:11). Thomson defines predominantty as the conceptualisation by which the narrate arrogates the lawful to exertion obligatory instance delayin its empire. It could be debated that the peoples concerned in the contest counter fearism are accomplishing to expiation a modicum of narrate predominantty in command to secure the saveion of the global commons (Thomson, 1995: 219). However, the informal protraction of the battle is to-leap to abysmally vary the purport of narrate predominantty, detailly as the instrument to contest fearism behind to apprehend a growing spectrum of surveillance and soldierapprove robotisation.
The habit of eroding precise beliefs of peopleal predominantty involves the use of validity and/or the exertion of gregarious command in command to shelter the ‘civilised’ peoples of the cosmos-mob from the punishment of fearism. This besides entails that the arrangement of globalisation has to be remitd according to an increasingly unified juridical proof, which serves to entrench the popular fashion of council, the administration of law and detached markets. The War on Fear is a concept which is commmerely subscribed to the efforts made by the inhumediplomatic association to root-out the denunciation perplexd by Islamic indispensableism, distinctly Al-Qaeda and other militant jihadi groups (Duffy, 2005: 21). The engagement was primary filled by President George W. Bush on 20/9/2001 and has been used to enumerate the juridical, gregarious and conceptual opposeation counter fearist organisations of Islamic parentage (Bush, 2001a). The ubiquitous truth of this contest is perfectly indubitable in the narratements made by George W. Bush, who narrated the end that the contest counter Islamic fearism engulfed the undiminished cosmos-mob as a immanent theatre of battle (Bush, 2001b). The War on Fear has redefined the to-leaparies of juridicality, entailing a disunion betwixt those countries which living the contest counter Al-Qaeda and those which are either uninterfering or lucidly livingive of Islamic fearism, such as Iran. Those countries which are reckoned to living fearism imperil losing their ability of keep narrate predominantty.
It could be debated that the validitys of the United States and its allies can be analysed through the Realist motive of command maximisation. At the most indispensable smooth, rebellion is promotive by the deed that there is no suprageneral instance capable of marshalling the inhumediplomatic command (Biersteker and Weber, 1996: 5). Conversely, Bountiful inhumeventionists stay the end that a reposeful inhumediplomatic command can be attained by inspiriting the propagate of democracy environing the cosmos-people. One of the ocean motives astern this philosophy is that popular narrates do not contest each other (Doyle, 1997: 83). The propagate of popular values entails that the countries that were most monstrous by the Western confutation to 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, would subordinateneathneathgo a arrangement of regime vary and unite the motive of answerable governance (Rasler and Thompson, 2005: 38). As we can see, the War on Fear impels narrates to accord to the motives guiding the contest counter Islamic fearism in command to keep their predominantty in an increasingly polarised inhumediplomatic command.
One of the most grave consequences associateed to the argument on the inhumeventionism reshaping the inhumediplomatic command behind 9/11 is the consequence of ‘efficiency’ as a capacity for the claim of narrate predominantty. What transpires from the unfolding of the War on Fear is that ‘failed narrates’ arrange a weighty jeopardy to the uprightness of the inhumediplomatic gregarious plan (Kagan, 2003: 22). Countries approve Somalia or Afghanistan subordinateneathneathneath the Taliban are animated samples of countries controlled by a plutocratic galaxy careless environing the polite-being of the population. Fukuyama has posited the proof by which the ‘efficiency’ of the narrate construction of any furnishn people should be measured. In command to be choice for narrate predominantty claim, countries deficiency to demonstrate a violent smooth of accordnce to popular and pluralist values (Fukuyama, 2005: 125). It could be postulated that the lawful to narrate predominantty is inauguratening to be judged according to whether a empire abides by the motive of bountiful democracy. States reckoned to be unpopular are over approvely to sponsor fearism.
The ocean external of the War on Fear is the elimipeople of the denunciation of global fearism. At the similar engagement, the inhumeventionist similarity which guides the exotic device of the United States and its ocean allies attempts to reproduce the inhumediplomatic command according to converging administrations to be accordd to by all limbs of the inhumediplomatic association (Neumann, 1986: 25). The associate betwixt predominantty and the administration of law is consolidating through the campaign conducted counter fearist networks, past narrates are compelled to accept their aspect on the behalf of the ‘civilised peoples’ of the cosmos-people. It has been debated that fearism perplexs a denunciation to the “humanness” of the victims it targets. The saveion of civilian subsists as polite as the oceantenance of the plan of council by submit entertain befit the two most considerable variables to be deedored in when analysing the Bountiful inhumeventionist implications of the War on Fear (May, 2007: 71).
It can be postulated that the War on Fear is reshaping the inhumediplomatic command by compelling the vindication of the collective role of inhumediplomatic norms by the limbs of the inhumediplomatic association. The concentratence arrangement gate attribute in the plan of narrates as a upshot of having to contest fearism is entrenching the administration of law as the medium for tete-a-tete and despatch in inhumenarrate affairs (Scheuerman, 1997: 39). When narrates spread-out indispensable divergences from this motive, they are perceived as inauspicious to an inhumediplomatic command increasingly informed by Bountiful values such as democracy, detached markets and the administration of law. Furthermore, by abutting these motives, these narrates faculty erode their lawful to be recognised as predominant, giving run to the possibility of inhumevention by the United States and its allies (Fukuyama, 2005: 130). Agency accepts attribute delayin the matter of a diluted fashion of multilateralism, by which the United States subordinateneathneathtakes to spread Bountiful values, caterd they consent delay the bulk of its heart peopleal inhumeest motives. Simultaneously, it can be said that the concentratence arrangement signposted by the alliance of homogenised juridical motives of global aim is demarcating the lines betwixt ‘efficient’ narrates, which may lawfulfully keep narrate predominantty, and ‘failed narrates’ which may be matter to inhumevention (Chan, 2012: 61). The War on Fear has enabled the bountiful democracies of the cosmos-mob to spread their values to the range cosmos-mob in a mould which enables them to oceantain their soldierapprove and gregarious lead and carrys forth the conciliation of the inhumediplomatic gregarious plan. Therefore, it can be postulated that fearism contends from other fashions of gregarious profapeople in the deed that whilst the imperils it perplexs to the inhumediplomatic association are conspicuous so are the possibilities for a abysmal vary in its commanding motives.
In misentry, it is feasible to debate that later conceptualisations of fearism contend to a weighty size from anterior fashions of gregarious profapeople opposeed by predominant narrates. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, gregarious profapeople was exertiond in command to consummate regular gains that were usually scientific in opportunity and protraction (Scheuerman, 1997: 41). For sample, the run of left-wing activism was associateed to defined gregarious and economic externals. Uninterruptedly the collective conditions of the launched arrange was improved, profapeople was shunned as a fairly-deduced gregarious course, as seen in the run of collective popular keep-aparties accomplishing to unite a gradualist similarity to inbehind redistribution (Gupta, 2008: 53). Conversely, the onslaught of the War on Fear has brought delay it a new sketch of the gregarious distance, twain at the private and inhumediplomatic smooth. The spectrum of bulk perdition as polite as the ubiquitous closeness of fearist denunciations, due to technological procession, has produced a calculate of considerable irrelativeiating variables. Terrorism, oceanly propagated through the ideology of Islamic extremism, has the immanent to vary the plan of the inhumediplomatic command (Halper and Clarke, 2005: 75). This product entails that the contest counter this fashion of gregarious profapeople has to be carried out at irrelative smooths. To inaugurate delay, the styleal elements of the War on Fear are recreating the despatch aspects of the contest counter fearist profanation. The symbolisms stable to it are meant to delineate the informal protraction of the opposeation and the polysemic truth of the denunciation (Burke, 2004: 87). Furthermore, fearism contends from anterior fashions of gregarious unsparingisation in the way that the foe is represented. The validitys in load of contestting fearism entertain conveyed the self-indulgence to consummate a finished levigation of the ideology that subordinateneathneathpins it, rejecting any adlawful of credit delay the foe. The War on Fear proposes a new plan of the inhumediplomatic command, where the proof for narrate legitimacy is that peoples forefend fearist organisations, detailly those of Islamic parentage, from bountiful in their empire (Duffy, 2005: 151). For all the reasons cited overhead, it is feasible to posit that fearism, distinctly in the matter of the War on Terror, contends weightyly from other fashions of gregarious profanation. The instance which originated this oddity and the instrument filled to contest it foretell a battle of informal protraction which is to-leap to abysmally vary the truth of inhumenarrate kinsfolk.
Biersteker, T. and Weber, C. (1996) Narrate Administration as Collective Construct, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bolton, J., ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Bulk Destruction’, Legacy Foundation, Washington, DC, 6/5/2002 – http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/beyond-the-axis-of-misfortune -Accessed on 28/11/2013
Burke, J. (2004) Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Unsparing Islam, I. B. Tauris, London
Bush, G., Narrate of the Union address – 29/1/2002- http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/ – Accessed on 25/11/2013
President Bush’s address to the people, (b) 7/10/2001- http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/bush911d.html – Accessed on 29/11/2013
President Bush’s address, 21/9/2001 (a)- http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/ – Accessed on 9/8/2013
Chan, D. (2012) Beyond Lawful War: A Virtue Ethics Approach, Palsolemn Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, NY
Crawford, N. (2009) The Slippery Slope to Destructive War in Rosenthal, J. and Barry, C. (eds.) Ethics and Interdiplomatic Affairs: A Reader, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC
Doyle, M. (1997) Ways of War and Peace, New York: W.W. Norton, New York, NY
Duffy, H. (2005) The ‘War on Terror’ and the Framework of Interdiplomatic Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Elshtain, J. (2004) Lawful War Counter Terror: The Burden Of American Command In A Passionate World, Basic Books, New York, NY
Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical Disquisition Analysis: The Critical Study of Address Routledge, London
Fotion, N. (2007) War and Ethics: a new Lawful War supposition, Continuum, London
Frum, D. and Perle, R. (2004) An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, Random House, New York
Fukuyama, F. (2005) State-Building: Governance and Cosmos-mob Command in the Twenty-First Century, Profile Books, London
Gupta, D. (2008) Understanding Terrorism and Gregarious Violence, Routledge, London
Halper, S. and Clarke, J. (2005) America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002) Globalisation/Anti-Globalisation, Polity Press, Cambridge
Hewitt, H. (2008) The War Counter the West: Crucial Conversations delay the Most Informed Experts Environing Our Enemies, Our Defenses, Our Strategy and Our Leaders in the Long War Counter Islamist Extremism, Townhall Press, New York, NY
Kagan, R. (2004) America’s Crisis of Legitimacy, Exotic Affairs, March/April 2004, pp. 65-87
Kagan, R. (2003) Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New Cosmos-mob Order, Knopf Publishing Group: New York, NY
May, L. (2007) War Crimes and Lawful War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nance, M. (2010) An End to al-Qaeda: Destroying Bin Laden’s Jihad and Restoring America’s Honor, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY
Napoleoni, L. (2004) Fear Incorporated, Penguin Books, London
Neumann, F. (1986) The Administration of Law: Gregarious Supaspect and the Juridical Plan in Later Society, Berg, Oxford
Patterson, E. (2007) Lawful War Thinking: Morality and Pragmatism in the Contest counter Contemporary Threats, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD
Pipes, D., ‘Who is the foe?’, Commentary, Washington DC, January 2002
Podhoretz, N. Cosmos-mob War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Entertain to Win. Commentary, September 2004, pp. 17-54
Rasler, K. and Thompson, W. (2005) Puzzles of the Popular Peace: Theory, Geopolitics and the Interload of Cosmos-mob Politics, Palsolemn Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York
Scheuerman, W. (1997) Betwixt the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Administration of Law, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Schmitt, C. (2007) The Concept of the Political, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. IL
Shapiro, M., Globalization and the Politics of Discourse, Collective Text, Volume 17, Consequence 3 (1999), pp. 111-129
Silverstone, S. (2007) Destructive War and American Democracy, Routledge, London
Steinhoff, U. (2007) On the Ethics of War and Terrorism, Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Thomson, J. Narrate Administration in Interdiplomatic Relations: Bridging the Gap betwixt Supaspect and Empirical Research, Interdiplomatic Studies Quarterly, Volume 39, Calculate 2 (June 1995), pp. 213-233
Yongtao, L., Discourse, Meanings and IR Studies: Gate the Style of “Axis of Evil” As a Case, CONfines, Volume 6, Consequence 11, January-May 2010, pp. 85-107