PCR 415: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Nature of Global Terrorism

1. Course Foundation and Strategic Scope

PCR 415: The Nature of Global Terrorism occupies a position of paramount

strategic importance within the academic architecture of the National Open
University of Nigeria’s (NOUN) School of Arts and Social Sciences. As a 3-unit
course, it is designed not merely as an elective, but as a critical pedagogical
cornerstone for the Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution program. In the
contemporary geopolitical landscape, characterized by the proliferation of
asymmetrical threats and the erosion of the Westphalian monopoly on violence,
this course provides the rigorous analytical scaffolding necessary for future
security practitioners and scholars. By dissecting the profiles, technological
procurement, and ideological underpinnings of clandestine organizations, PCR
415 moves beyond sensationalist media narratives to offer a clinical, evidence-
based understanding of how terrorism functions as a tool of political
communication and strategic coercion.

The following table delineates the structural framework of the course, contrasting
its broad pedagogical ambitions with the granular learning outcomes required for
academic mastery:

Course Description and Strategic

Pedagogical Logic & Contrast
Component Focus

To expose students to the

Broad Exposure: Focuses on the
multi-dimensional
"Global War on Terror" and the
Course phenomenon of global
systemic factors (economic,
Aims terrorism, evaluating how
religious, political) that sustain
localized grievances are
transnational violence.
catalyzed by global factors to

1
 undermine international
security.

To enable students to Specific Differentiators: Moves

differentiate between guerrilla from general knowledge to critical
warfare and terrorism; analyze skills, such as distinguishing the
Course
the nexus between anti- intentional targeting of non-
Objectives
colonialism and tactical combatants (terrorism) from the
violence; and evaluate multi- targeting of military assets (guerrilla
disciplinary analytical models. warfare).

The mastery of these objectives is a prerequisite for any serious student of global
security. It provides the essential nomenclature and historical depth required to
navigate the definitional quagmires and tactical evolutions that have reshaped
international relations in the post-9/11 era.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Definitional Paradox: Terminology and Conceptual Disarray

The primary strategic hurdle in international law and counter-terrorism

cooperation remains the lack of a universally accepted definition of "terrorism."
This conceptual disarray is far from a mere academic quibble; it represents a
fundamental fracture in global governance. Without a shared definition,
international legal instruments suffer from inconsistent application, and
extradition treaties are often paralyzed by the "political offense exception." The
term is intrinsically "essentially contested," as its application often reflects the
political interests of the labeler rather than an objective set of criteria. As Hoffman
(1998) observes, the term is so politically and emotionally charged that consensus
is frequently sacrificed on the altar of national interest.

The following table synthesizes key institutional definitions, highlighting the key
differentiators that drive international policy:
2
Institution / Source Definitional Focus Key Differentiators

Unlawful use of force or Prioritizes the "intimidation of

FBI violence against persons civilian populations" to further
or property. social or political objectives.

Declares acts "unjustifiable"

Criminal acts intended to
United Nations regardless of political,
provoke a state of terror
(1994) philosophical, or religious
in the general public.
invocations.

Unlawful use/threat of Specifically focuses on the intent

US Vice President’s
violence against persons to "modify the behavior" of
Task Force (1986)
or property. governments or groups.

Use or threat of action Explicitly broadens the scope to

UK Terrorist Act
designed to influence include "religious or ideological
2000
government or public. causes."

Israeli Prevention Acts of violence Defines a "terrorist organization"

of Terrorism calculated to cause death as a body resorting to such acts in
Ordinance No. 33 or injury. its activities.

Distinguishes between domestic

Acts dangerous to human
US Federal Statute and international terror based on
life that violate criminal
(18 USC 2331) geographic origin and
law.
jurisdiction.

The "Freedom Fighter" Contradiction and State Hypocrisy

The aphorism "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" continues to
undermine the development of a coherent international legal regime. This
subjectivity is rooted in historical contradictions. During the 1980s, the US

3
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) actively supported the UNITA rebels in
Angola to counter Soviet influence, while simultaneously attempting to
destabilize the Sandinista government in Nicaragua and Fidel Castro in Cuba—
actions that the affected states characterized as state-sponsored terrorism.
Conversely, while Western powers often labeled liberation movements in South
Africa, Rhodesia, and Portuguese-controlled Angola as "terrorist," these groups
were viewed by the OAU and the Eastern Bloc as legitimate vanguards of self-
determination. These competing narratives demonstrate that the label "terrorist"
is frequently used to delegitimize political opponents while exempting one’s own
proxies from similar scrutiny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Linguistic Origins and the Evolution of the "Terreur"

The etymology of "terrorism" reveals a profound strategic shift in the word's

application. Originally, the term was a descriptor for state utility—a tool of the
establishment to maintain order.

 Linguistic Roots: The term originates from the French terrorisme,

stemming from the Latin terreo ("I frighten"). In ancient Rome, the terror
cimbricus was a formal state of emergency declared in 105 BC to mobilize
the populace against invading tribes.

 The Reign of Terror (1789–1799): During the French Revolution, the

Jacobin club under Maximilien Robespierre institutionalized the regime de
la terreur. Paradoxically, the Jacobins viewed "terror" as a virtuous
necessity—a "purifying" tool of the revolution intended to protect the
nascent democracy from its aristocratic enemies. It was a system of
government, not an anti-government tactic.

 The 19th-Century Pivot: The term's connotation shifted toward sub-state

actors in the late 1800s. Sergey Nechayev, author of The Revolutionary

4
 Catechism, and his group "People's Retribution" (1869), embraced the
label "terrorist" to describe their violent struggle against the Tsarist
autocracy.

This etymological shift from state-utility to sub-state pathology represents a

fundamental pivot in the security apparatus's conceptualization of threat.
Understanding these roots is essential for contextualizing how violence has
transitioned from a tool of the sovereign to a weapon of the disenfranchised.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. A Chronological Deep-Dive: From Zealots to the 21st Century

A longitudinal analysis of terrorist activity reveals persistent patterns of behavior

that transcend specific religious or secular eras.

Early Beginnings: Sacramental Violence In the 1st Century AD, the Zealots
(and their radical offshoot, the Sicarii) utilized the sica—a primitive curved
dagger—to assassinate Roman collaborators in broad daylight. These attacks
were strategically staged in crowded marketplaces or during feast days to ensure
maximum psychological impact on the Judean population, serving as a
"sacramental" message of resistance. Similarly, the Islamic Assassins (1090–
1272) targeted the Christian Crusaders and Sunni authorities in Syria. They
viewed their high-risk assassinations as a divine duty, introducing the concept of
"suicidal martyrdom" where the perpetrator sought not survival, but a "glorious
heaven."

The Anarchist Era (1881–Early 20th Century) The Russian People’s Will
(Narodnaya Volya) established the template for modern revolutionary terror by
targeting symbolic "instruments of oppression." Their 1881 assassination of Tsar
Alexander II emboldened a global anarchist movement that successfully targeted
US President William McKinley (1901), Empress Elisabeth of Austria, and
several European heads of state. This era popularized "propaganda by the deed,"

5
the idea that a single violent act could awaken the masses more effectively than a
thousand pamphlets.

The Rise of State Terror (1920s–1930s) During the interwar period, the term
returned to its origins as an instrument of state repression. The totalitarian regimes
of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union (under Stalin’s Gulag
system) institutionalized terror through secret police forces (Gestapo, NKVD),
using torture, death squads, and unlawful detentions to maintain absolute social
control.

Anti-Colonial Terrorism (1940s–1950s) Post-WWII nationalism saw the

strategic use of terror to force colonial withdrawal. The Mau-Mau in Kenya and
the Irgun in Palestine utilized asymmetric violence to make the cost of
occupation untenable for European powers. A pivotal example is the 1946
bombing of the King David Hotel by Irgun, which targeted the British
administrative headquarters to signal the end of the Mandate era.

The Internationalization of Terror (1960s–1990s) The July 22, 1968, hijacking

of an El Al flight by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
marked the dawn of the "current era." It was the first hijacking designed purely
for global media consumption rather than local tactical gains. This period saw the
rise of state-sponsored acts, such as Libya's involvement in the 1988 bombing of
Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, and the resurgence of religious extremist violence,
exemplified by the 1981 assassination of Anwar al-Sadat.

This evolution paved the way for the post-9/11 landscape, where groups like Al-
Qaeda and ISIS leveraged globalization to create a "virtual nation" of
decentralized threat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Nature of Terrorism: Differentiation from Crime and Warfare

6
Correctly classifying terrorism is of paramount strategic importance; the
classification determines whether the response is governed by the rules of
criminal procedure or the laws of armed conflict.

 Terrorism vs. Standard Crime: While both involve illegal acts, standard
crime is typically motivated by personal aggrandizement or material gain
(e.g., the Mafia). Terrorism is inherently "altruistic" in the perpetrator's
mind; it is driven by a "higher cause" that transcends personal impulse.

 Terrorism vs. Traditional Warfare: In conventional war, the objective is

the destruction of the enemy’s military capability. In terrorism, the identity
of the specific individuals killed is often irrelevant. The victims are
"instrumental," serving as a medium through which a message is sent to
the surviving society.

"Terrorism is an international act; a premeditated act; an act of violence; it causes

fear; it aims at a specific target audience or society; and it intends to change
behavior in that audience or society. It is political, not criminal... it is aimed at
civilians, not military targets... it is carried out by sub-national groups, not the
army of a country." — Paul Pillar, former CIA Deputy Chief of
Counterterrorism

The ideological nature of terrorism is its most defining feature. As Conte (2010)
argues, ideology provides the psychological "moral bypass" that justifies the
killing of non-combatants. By framing the conflict as a cosmic struggle between
good and evil, the terrorist views the act not as murder, but as a "legitimate and
appropriate" fulfillment of a divine or revolutionary mandate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Tactical Evolution: Changes and Continuities in Global Terror

7
Technology and globalization have shifted terrorist methodology from localized
political assassinations to mass-casualty, "spectacle" violence.

20th Century Tactics 21st Century Evolutions

Targeted assassinations of specific Focus on "indiscriminate" targeting of

political authorities. civilian populations.

Use of localized small arms and Pursuit and use of WMDs (Biological,
traditional explosives. Chemical, Nuclear).

Traditional hijacking for hostage Suicide bombings as a "primary strategic

negotiation/ransoms. choice."

Physical, hierarchical command Decentralized "virtual" networks and "lone

structures. wolf" actors.

Localized media impact Exploitation of the Internet as a "force

(print/television). multiplier" for global radicalization.

Case Study: Symbolic Targets The 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center demonstrate the shift toward targeting "iconic symbols" of wealth and
dominance. These targets are chosen not merely for the death toll, but for their
cultural and economic significance, ensuring the clandestine organization
achieves "maximum attainable publicity" as an amplifying force multiplier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Theoretical Frameworks: The Four Pillars of Terrorism Analysis

To understand the "normality" of the individual terrorist versus the extremity of

their actions, we must adopt a multi-disciplinary approach.

1. The Multi-Causal Approach: Argues that terrorism results from an

intersection of psychological, economic, and religious factors. Wilkinson

8
 (1977) posits that ethnic and ideological conflicts are key sustainers of this
violence.

2. The Political or Structural Approach: Focuses on "Relative

Deprivation" (Gurr, 1970). This suggests that the frustration caused by the
gap between expectations and reality—especially in economic and social
spheres—triggers collective violence.

3. The Rational or Organisational Approach: Views terrorism as a

"rational strategic choice" made by a group rather than an individual.
Crenshaw (1981) argues that organizations use terror because they have
calculated it to be the most effective tool to achieve their goals relative to
their limited resources.

4. The Psychological Approach: Focuses on recruitment and the "terrorist

career." Robert Pape’s (2003) study of suicide terrorism refutes the idea of
"irrationality," suggesting these acts are strategic responses to foreign
occupation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Typologies of Terrorist Acts: A Detailed Categorization

1. Global/International: Involves citizens or territories of more than one

country (e.g., Al-Qaeda). So What? Requires complex transnational
intelligence sharing.

2. Domestic: Occurs within a single country with no foreign involvement. So

What? Falls under the sovereign jurisdiction of the state’s police power.

3. Political: Aimed at changing the existing political order. So What?

Distinguishes terror from standard criminal enterprise.

4. Revolutionary: Seeking the total overthrow of a government (e.g.,

Narodnaya Volya). So What? Targets the very legitimacy of the state.

9
5. State and State-Sponsored: Violence perpetrated by a government
against its own people or proxies. So What? Complicates the "terrorist" vs.
"sovereign" legal distinction.

6. Bioterrorism: Use of biological agents (anthrax, ricin). So What? Requires

a public health response as much as a military one.

7. Cyber-Terrorism: Attacks on digital infrastructure. So What? Can cripple

a modern state without firing a single shot.

8. Agricultural: Targeted attacks on food supplies. So What? Aimed at

creating long-term economic instability and famine.

9. Eco-Terrorism: Violence in support of environmental causes. So What?

Demonstrates how "noble" causes can be radicalized.

[Link]: The pursuit or use of nuclear materials. So What? Represents the

ultimate "existential threat" to humanity.

[Link]: Use of "dirty bombs" to spread radiation. So What? High

psychological impact even with low immediate lethality.

[Link]: Use of toxic substances (Sarin gas in the 1994 Matsumoto

attack). So What? Effective in enclosed urban spaces.

[Link]: Use of drug trafficking profits to fund terror (e.g.,

FARC). So What? Creates a symbiotic link between organized crime and
political violence.

[Link]: Violence justified by divine mandate (sacramental terror). So

What? Makes negotiation difficult as the "target audience" is often a deity.

[Link]: The death of the perpetrator is a requirement for success. So

What? Negates the efficacy of traditional deterrents like the threat of
imprisonment.

10
 [Link]: Linked to ethnic or separatist movements (e.g., IRA). So What?
Often enjoys deep localized support, making it harder to root out.

The Interconnectedness Factor The Sierra Leone RUF/Al-Qaeda diamond

link serves as the primary case study for modern interconnectedness. By selling
conflict diamonds to Al-Qaeda, the RUF funded a domestic civil war while
providing Al-Qaeda with a portable, untraceable asset to circumvent post-9/11
financial monitoring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Academic Defense and Examination Preparation

Potential Exam/Defense Questions and Model Answers

Q1: Critically evaluate the OAU/AU definition of terrorism from the 1999
Algiers meeting and its significance in the African context. Answer: The 1999
Algiers Convention provided a robust African framework by defining terrorism
as any act violating state criminal laws that endangers life or property to force a
government to adopt or abandon a standpoint. Its significance lies in its holistic
scope, covering the disruption of "essential services" and public emergencies.
This was a direct response to the unique vulnerabilities of African states, where
the targeting of fragile infrastructure can be as destabilizing as direct
assassination. By codifying these acts as criminal, the AU sought to move past
the "freedom fighter" era and establish a unified front against extremism (OAU,
1999).

Q2: Contrast the political and psychological approaches to terrorism

analysis as discussed by Gurr and Sageman. Answer: The political approach,
championed by Ted Robert Gurr (1970), emphasizes "relative deprivation"—the
psychological frustration arising from perceived social or economic inequality. It
views terrorism as a structural outcome of environmental preconditions.
Conversely, the psychological approach, favored by Marc Sageman (2004),

11
focuses on the "normality" of the terrorist, examining individual recruitment,
small-group dynamics, and "careers" in violence. While Gurr looks at why a
society produces violence, Sageman looks at how a specific individual is
socialized into a clandestine network, refuting the notion that terrorists are simply
"mentally ill."

Q3: Explain Ganor’s (2000) distinction between guerrilla warfare and

terrorism. Answer: Boaz Ganor provides a critical distinction based on the target
of the violence. Guerrilla warfare is characterized as the "purposeful targeting of
military personnel and installations" to achieve political aims. Terrorism,
however, is the "intentional use of violence against civilians." This distinction is
vital for international law, as it allows the international community to condemn
the methods of a group (the targeting of non-combatants) without necessarily
taking a stand on their underlying political cause.

Q4: Discuss the "symbolic significance" of 21st-century terrorist targets

using the 1993/2001 WTC attacks. Answer: Modern terrorism is a form of
communication. Targets like the World Trade Center are chosen as "iconic
symbols" of American economic dominance. The 1993 and 2001 attacks were not
merely aimed at killing employees but at wounding the "national psyche" and
demonstrating the vulnerability of the superpower. The goal is to achieve
"maximum attainable publicity," turning the global media into an involuntary
force multiplier that broadcasts the terrorist's message of defiance and state
impotence (Pillar, 2001).

Q5: Analyze the role of ideology as the "most important feature" of

terrorism according to Conte (2010). Answer: Ideology serves as the
"altruistic" justification for what would otherwise be considered murder. It
provides a set of beliefs that frames the victim not as an innocent human, but as
a legitimate target (e.g., an "infidel" or "class enemy"). Conte argues that this
ideological framework is what distinguishes a terrorist from a common criminal;

12
while the criminal seeks personal gain, the terrorist believes they are fulfilling a
higher mandate. This makes the terrorist harder to deter, as their actions are seen
as "legitimate and appropriate" within their own moral universe.

Q6: Evaluate the etymological shift of the word "terrorism" from the French
Revolution to the late 19th century. Answer: Originally, terrorisme referred to
a "system of government" used by the Jacobins to purify the revolution through
state violence. However, by the late 19th century, the term pivoted to describe
anti-government violence. Sergey Nechayev and the Russian "People's
Retribution" embraced the label to describe their struggle against the Tsar. This
shift is profound: terrorism transitioned from a tool of state control to a weapon
of sub-state rebellion, a connotation that persists in the modern era.

Q7: Explain the strategic "So What?" factor of Narcoterrorism in the

context of state stability. Answer: Narcoterrorism represents the intersection of
political violence and the global drug trade. The "So What?" factor is the massive
financial "force multiplier" it provides to non-state actors. By controlling drug
routes, groups like the FARC or Al-Qaeda (through various proxies) gain access
to untraceable wealth, allowing them to purchase advanced weaponry and corrupt
state officials, thereby creating "parallel states" that undermine the sovereign's
monopoly on power.

Q8: Discuss the significance of the 1968 PFLP hijacking as the dawn of the
"current era." Answer: The hijacking of an El Al flight in 1968 by the PFLP was
the first "clearly political" hijacking. Unlike previous incidents, the goal was not
transportation or a single ransom, but the creation of an international crisis that
would force the world to acknowledge the Palestinian cause. It demonstrated that
terrorism could be used to "hijack" the global media, setting the precedent for the
internationalized, media-centric terror of the 21st century.

13
Q9: Analyze the "sacramental" nature of the 1st-century Zealot and
Assassin tactics. Answer: For the Zealots and the Assassins, violence was not
merely a tactic but a "divine act." The Zealots used public assassinations to send
a "sacramental" message to collaborators, while the Assassins viewed their deaths
as a guarantee of entry into heaven. This historical precedent is critical for
understanding modern religious terror, where the perpetrator is motivated by
"divine mandate" rather than political negotiation.

Q10: Contrast the "People's Will" model of terror with modern

decentralized networks. Answer: The "People's Will" (1881) operated on a
hierarchical, cell-based model targeting specific high-profile "instruments of
power" (like the Tsar). Modern networks, facilitated by the Internet, are
decentralized and "virtual." They rely on "lone wolf" actors and symbolic mass-
casualty events rather than a single assassination. This shift makes modern terror
much harder to eradicate, as there is no central "head" to strike.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Reference Compendium

 Abolurin, A. (2011). Terrorism: Nigerian and Global Dimensions. Ibadan:

Golden-Gems Unique Multi-ventures.

 Bruce, H. (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.

 Crenshaw, M. (Ed.). (1985). Terrorism in Context. USA: Penn State Press.

 Enders, W. & Todd, S. W. (2012). The Political Economy of Terrorism.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

 Ford, J. (2011). "Africa Counter-Terrorism Legal Frameworks a Decade

after 2001." ISS Monograph No. 177. Pretoria: ISS.

 Gérard, C. & Arnaud, B. (2007). The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity

to Al-Qaeda. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14
 Guelke, A. (2009). The New Age of Terrorism and the International
Political System. London: I.B Tauris and Co Ltd.

 Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University

Press.

 Huntington, S.P. (1996). The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of

World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 Jane, B. & Thomas, G. W. (Eds.). (2004). Terrorism and the UN: Before
and After September 11. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

 Kavoori, A.P. & Fraley, T. (2006). Media, Terrorism, and Theory: A

Reader. USA: Rowman and Littlefield.

 Mamdani, M. (2004). Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War,
and the Roots of Terror. Dakar: CODESRIA.

 Oche, O. (2006). The Phenomenon of Terrorism. Lagos: Fog Ventures.

 Schmid, A. & Jongman, A. (1988). Political Terrorism. Oxford: North-

Holland Publishing.

 Smith, P. J. (2005). Terrorism and Violence in Southeast Asia. New York:

M.E Sharpe Inc.

 Walter, R. (Ed.). (1998). Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies,

Theologies, and States of Mind. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.

 Weinberg, L. (2009). Global Terrorism. New York: The Rosen Publishing

Group.

 Wilkinson, P. (2011). Terrorism versus Democracy. USA and Canada:

Routledge.

15