The Significance of Non-State Actors in Terrorism

            The Global Terrorism Database defines terrorism as an intentional act that entails actual of threatened violence carried out by “subnational actors.” Nate Silver, author of The Signal and the Noise, quotes this definition of terrorism, but does not elaborate upon the use of “subnational” actors. This article will focus on the concept of “subnational” or non-state actors, and the role they play in international security, and more specifically to terrorism. Terrorism is generally studied as a topic of International Relations, where terrorist organizations are treated as non-state actors. However, this approach shows presents as problematic considering most terrorist organizations are backed up by sovereign states.

            Terrorism on behalf of non-state actors, doesn’t necessarily exclude the cooperation of a state, but means that no state will take international responsibility after carrying out an act of terror. In fact, many states appoint militant groups that associate as non-state actors to carry out missions that would harm the state’s reputation if known that the order originated from it. According to a study from the Uppsala Concept Database, 87% of all conflicts from 1946-2001 involved a non-state actor (Gleditsch et al 2002). This figure does not account for any known wars, but rather violent incidents that have been categorized as terrorist attacks.

            Terrorism and terrorist attacks are both no new or modern concepts; however there has been much debate over properly defining it. The contention regarding the definition of terrorism is not just an intellectual one, rather it has major consequences for a state’s policy towards a particular militant or terrorist group. One weakness in trying to combat a “war against terror” is that terrorism is typically defined in ways that absolve states from taking any responsibility in such acts. There are two major problems with this approach. First, some of the relatively concrete definitions of terrorism, could indeed cover certain acts of states as well, such as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States, Indonesia’s campaign of violence in East Timor between, or “dirty war” in Chile during the Pinochet regime. The definition of terrorism adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005 constitutes any action with the intention of death as an act of terrorism.

            The second major problem with the mainstream approach to terrorism is that most terrorist organizations have been supported or exploited by some states. Major terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Hamas, the Kurdish PKK, or the Iranian MEK have been exploited by multiple states as mercenaries against their enemies. It would be far-fetched to argue that terrorist organizations are creations of foreign states; however, it would be equally far-fetched to assume that such major terrorist organizations like could have reached more than a fraction of their material capability without the support of foreign states. State support has played a key role in the strength and effectiveness of many terrorist organizations.

Works Cited

Bowen, Wyn Q. Deterrence and Asymmetry: Non State Actors and Mass Casualty

            Terrorism. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 25, Iss. 1, 2004

Dutka, D. L. (2006). Violent non-state actors in world politics: Their formation, actions,

            and effects. (Order No. 3229392, The Pennsylvania State University). ProQuest       Dissertations and Theses, , 216-216 p. Retrieved from             http://search.proquest.com/docview/305247723?accountid=14696. (305247723).

Silver, Nate. The Signal and the Noise: Why So many Predictions Fail but Some Don’t.       New work: Penguin Press, 2012. Print