This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 09 November 2014, At: 05:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Conflict & TerrorismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uter20

Toward a Theory of Terrorism: HumanSecurity as a Determinant of TerrorismRhonda Callaway a & Julie Harrelson-Stephens ba Department of Political Science , Sam Houston State University ,Huntsville, Texas, USAb Department of Political Science, Geography, and PublicAdministration , Stephen F. Austin State University , Nacogdoches,Texas, USAPublished online: 23 Nov 2006.

To cite this article: Rhonda Callaway & Julie Harrelson-Stephens (2006) Toward a Theory ofTerrorism: Human Security as a Determinant of Terrorism, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29:7,679-702, DOI: 10.1080/10576100600701974

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10576100600701974

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29:679–702, 2006Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1057-610X print / 1521-0731 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10576100600701974

Toward a Theory of Terrorism:Human Security as a Determinant of Terrorism

RHONDA CALLAWAY

Department of Political ScienceSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, Texas, USA

JULIE HARRELSON-STEPHENS

Department of Political Science, Geography, and Public AdministrationStephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdoches, Texas, USA

In this article, we investigate the relationship between human rights conditions andterrorist activity. We begin by outlining a theory for the genesis and growth of terrorismand argue that states which deny subsistence rights along with civil and political rightscreate an environment that is conducive to the development of terrorism. However, weconclude that it is the denial of security rights that is a necessary condition for thecreation and growth of terrorism. We then examine the causes of terrorism in NorthernIreland in light of this theory. Specifically, we explore the extent to which human rightsabuses contributed to the formation and growth of terrorists within Northern Ireland.We find that limits on the civil and political rights of the Catholic minority in NorthernIreland played a significant role in the genesis of terrorism. More importantly, Britishabuses of security rights increased the number of Irish citizens who supported andparticipated in terrorist activity.

The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001 broughtincreased world attention to the problem of terrorism. Unfortunately, acts of both domesticand international terrorism are not new as evidenced by groups such as the BasqueFatherland and Liberty (ETA) organization, Hezballah, the Provisional Irish RepublicanArmy, and more recently, Al Qaeda. Traditionally, research into terrorist activity has focusedon the role of the individual, primarily concentrating on providing typologies of terroristsand terrorism (Rubenstein 1974; Schultz 1990; Sederberg 1994; Laqueur 1999; 2001). Thisarticle seeks to move beyond classification and develop a theoretical framework to explainthe genesis of terrorism. It develops a model contending that poor political rights and poorhuman rights conditions are fundamental elements in the origins of terrorism.

We contend that many of the previously identified “causes” of terrorism can be viewedin terms of human rights.1 In addressing the topic of rights, the article addresses three specifichuman rights categories: political rights, personal security rights, and basic human needs. In

Received 24 February 2005; accepted 3 December 2005.Address correspondence to Rhonda Callaway, Dept. of Political Science, Box 2149, Huntsville,

TX, 7734 2149, USA. E-mail: rhonda.callaway@shsu.edu

679

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

680 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

addition, external factors may serve as a stimulant to terrorist activity. For example, colonialhistories, relationship with Diaspora, and cooperation among other terrorists groups may allcombine to contribute to the success and appeal of the domestic terrorist organization. Thecase of Northern Ireland and the IRA is examined to illustrate the model. It is found thatthe “troubles” of Northern Ireland are rooted in the human condition. That is, the terroristactivity that ravaged the region can be attributed to the violation of human rights.

We seek to improve on previous research in two important ways. We advance atheoretical framework for understanding and explaining the development of terrorism withina state. We contend that the current study of terrorism, which focuses on individual cases atthe exclusion of any systematic exploration of the subject, is unnecessarily underdeveloped.Moreover, the theoretical framework advanced in this article will serve as a precursor toempirical investigations of the causes of terrorism. It is only by developing a generalizabletheory of terrorism that its study will advance beyond mere description and classification.Second, the article examines the intersection between two disparate areas of research:human rights, or more broadly human security and terrorism. It is our contention that thestudy of terrorism is intrinsically linked to threats to human security. When looking at thegenesis of terrorism around the world it always occurs in conjunction with the denial ofbasic human rights. Accordingly, in the war on terrorism any idea of security can only berealized if human security is explicitly included. This article contends that the basis forterrorism is found in deprivation of political, subsistence, and security rights, and thereforeany policy designed to decrease terrorism necessarily implies addressing these rights.

The rest of the article is presented in four parts. The first section examines the difficultyin defining terrorism and the resulting lack of consensus within the study of terrorism. Thesecond section advances the theoretical framework on the relationship between humanrights violations and terrorism. The section begins by discussing human rights conditionswithin the state and its influence on the formation of terrorist activity. It then examines theinfluence of external factors on the formation of terrorist activity. This section is concludedwith a model of human rights and terrorism. A case study of Northern Ireland is presentedin the third section and is intended as an initial test of the model developed in section two.Here, we provide a brief historical overview, concentrating on key events in the formationof the IRA, and then turn attention to examples of violations of specific rights in orderto examine the applicability of the theoretical model. This section is concluded with adiscussion of important international factors that helped shape the development of terroristactivity. The fourth and last section offers a discussion of the implications of the case study,the article’s conclusions, as well as suggestions for further research.

Defining Terrorism and State of the Field

A review of the literature addressing the definition of terrorism reveals the difficulty inadvancing the study of the subject. First, there is little consensus on the definition itself.For example, terrorism has been defined as politically motivated violence by small groups(Rubenstein 1974), covert violence by a group for political ends (Laqueur 2001), politicalviolence that includes a “climate of terror” (Wilkinson 2003), and a “synthesis of war andtheater . . . perpetuated on innocent victims . . . in the hope of creating a mood of fear, forpolitical purposes” (Combs 2003, 10). Although many of the definitions contain similarelements (violence, political motives, innocent victims), a precise or measurable definitionis lacking. Each definition requires a normative judgment on the part of the reader thatinevitably leads to the much often quoted, one man’s terrorist is another man’s revolutionary,even to the extent that a “great deal of time and effort has been expended in trying to make

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 681

the truly reprehensible politically respectable” (Cooper 2001, 887). The result, as Schultz(1990, 49) points out, is a literature that is “descriptive, prescriptive and obliquely emotivein form.” This leads to the second endemic problem in the terrorist literature, the overlynormative nature of the research.

Most definitions of terrorism involve normative judgments that create a barrier toempirical research. Rubenstein (1974) suggests that the word terrorism involves judgment,which necessarily implies illegitimacy. Laqueur (1999) points out that although guerrillahas a positive connotation, terrorism almost always has a negative meaning. It is hereinrecognized that many of the subfields of social science cannot escape a dose of normativeovertones. For example, researchers of human rights would generally argue, in a normativemanner, that states should not engage in human rights violations. However, at some stagethe research of any topic must move forward into testable hypotheses. The problem withthe normative nature of terrorism, the vagueness of the definition, as well as a lack of consen-sus regarding a definition of terrorism is that this precludes any additive as well as cumulativeresearch in the field (Zinnes 1976). In fact, O’Brien (1998) argues that scholarly researchon the causes of international terrorism has all but escaped rigorous empirical analysis.

Given these inherent problems, we utilize the definition provided by Bueno de Mesquita(2000, 339) who defines terrorism as “any act of violence undertaken for the purpose ofaltering a government’s political policies or actions that targets those who do not actuallyhave the personal authority to alter governmental policy.” As such, terrorism is designed to“spread fear and anxiety (terror) through a population so that it will, in turn, put pressure onits leaders to change policies in a way favored by terrorists” (Buena de Mesquita 2000, 339).The benefit of Buena de Mesquita’s definition is that it avoids the normative pitfalls of otherdefinitions of terrorism. According to this definition, terrorism can be distinguished fromother forms of conflict by its target. Terrorism involves conflict where non-governmentalentities target civilians, as opposed to other forms of conflict where the targets are elementsof the government. The researcher does not have to make a normative judgment regardingthe difference between an independence movement and terrorism, but instead must identifythe target.2 This definition allows for conceptual independence for empirical research ofthe causes and effects of terrorism.

Most research on the causes of terrorism focuses on the individual level of analysis,particularly the psychological and sociological causes (Rubenstein 1974; Crenshaw 1981;Sederberg 1994; Combs 2003). Scant research examines state or system causes of terroristsactivity in spite of the plethora of media and popular attention to these types of conditions(Crenshaw 1981; Ross 1993). In attempting to discuss political, social, or economicconditions influencing terrorism, the bulk of research consists of case studies (Crenshaw1981; Whittaker 2001), primarily on the basis that no general theory of terrorism has beenformulated. In fact, Crenshaw (1995, 5) suggests that in regards to terrorism “a generaltheory based on conditions is impossible because the final decision depends on judgmentsindividual political actors make about these conditions.” This article argues that this isprobably true about many issues in political science, sociology, and the other social sciences.If one is devising a theory of why certain regimes violate human rights, ultimately it is up tothe individual political actors to make some judgment about the conditions within the statethat makes violating human rights seem worthwhile. Similarly, if one discusses foreignpolicy, decisions to use force, or international relations in general, one could always deferto particular judgments of the different state leaders. If this premise is accepted, the future ofresearch on terrorism will forever remain in the infancy stage. Moreover, failure to develop atheoretical framework regarding terrorism prevents researchers from ever hoping to predictand forecast terrorist activity. On the other hand, an overarching theoretical framework

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

682 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

would facilitate future empirical testing and allow one to draw broad generalizations aboutthe causes of terrorism. Taking Buena de Mesquita’s definition of terrorism as a startingplace, the next section develops a general framework to identify the causes of terrorism.

Human Rights, International Factors and Terrorism: The Theoretical Links

“In the early hours of Monday 9 August 1971, I was kidnapped from my bedby armed men, taken away and held as a hostage for five and a half weeks. Iwas not in Uruguay, Brazil, Greece or Russia. I was in the United Kingdom,an hour’s flight from London. I was in Belfast.”—John McGuffin (1973)

At the heart of the present argument is the human condition. What makes the averagecitizen become an active member of a terrorist organization? Is it the absence of politicaland civil rights? Is it the belief that no political redress is possible? Is it a repressivestate, one that tortures and systematically violates the political, civil, and personal integrityrights of its citizenry? Is it the inability to adequately care for one’s family? Is it poorliving conditions? A violation of any one of these rights alone would generally not leadto widespread support for terrorist activity. However, it is the author’s contention that thesystematic violations of these three rights in tandem are likely causes for terrorist activity,particularly if these violations are sustained over a long period of time.

Political and Civil Rights

Political and civil rights dominated early research on human rights, as researchers attemptedto examine how and why states violate such rights (Wolpin 1986; Stohl and Lopez 1987;Park 1987; Mitchell and McCormick 1988). This focus was predicated on the views of notonly the U.S. government but also many Western-oriented researchers and human rightsorganization (Goldstein 1992, 38). Conceptually, political rights ensure that citizens areable to participate in government, usually in the form of voting, protesting, and otherwiselegitimately opposing the government in power.3

Which states generally violate these types of rights? One good starting place is regimetype. Inherently, democracies are more open and transparent, thus more accepting ofpolitical protests (Gurr 1979; Hamilton 1978; Turk 1982; Ross 1993; Eubank and Weinberg1994). The more open the political system, the less likely individuals are to go outside thesystem to participate in the political process (Essman 1994). Citizens who are able to protestwithin their regime are less likely to resort to terrorism. In such cases, citizens have a legalmeans of exerting pressure for political change without resorting to extra-systematic means.Thus, it is argued that democracies are less likely to engender terrorist groups.

Conversely, a citizen in a state with limited political rights is less likely to have anopportunity to work within the system to affect change. More closed political systems,therefore, motivate citizens to seek redress outside the norms of the system. A prolongeddenial of political rights and civil liberties provides a foundation of domestic politicaldissent. The more closed the system, the more likely this political dissent will take on aviolent nature. Often minorities, especially ethnic minorities, are disenfranchised, whichcreates an environment for a violent response. A group that is systematically excludedfrom the political process may feel it has no choice but to pursue unconventional meansof participation including, in the extreme, terrorism. After the overthrow of Peron inArgentina, for example, the Aramburu government targeted Peronists and excluded them

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 683

Figure 1. Relationship between political openness and terrorism.

from participating in the political system. It was within this context that a small group ofPeronists formed a resistance group called the Montoneros. Eventually this group wouldembrace terrorism in an attempt to affect change in the political system of Argentina(Whitaker 2003).

Similarly, in Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese majority has systemically repressed and abusedthe Tamil minority by the imposition of an “illiberal language policy (Sinhalese only),the refusal to give all Tamils in Sri Lanka citizenship, and the attempt to repatriate someof them to India, even though they had been born in Sri Lanka” (Whitaker 2003, 94).Attempts by the Sinhalese to marginalize the Tamils led to a violent reaction by the latter.Although the violence and revolutionary tendencies of the Tamils was originally based onMarxism, it has been replaced by a violent form of self-determination (Whitaker 2003). TheSri Lankan case shows a minority restricted politically by a majority leading to domesticpolitical violence. Thus, denial of political rights and exclusion from legitimate means ofpolitical participation has been an important factor in acceptance of non-legitimate meansof political participation. We contend that as the level of political openness decreases, thelikelihood that individuals will resort to terrorism activity increases. As Figure 1 indicates,it is hypothesized that the relationship between political rights and terrorism is a linear one.

Security Rights

When the types of violations evolve from preventing citizens from participating ingovernment to physically harming the citizenry, the state has graduated from violatingpolitical rights to violating personal security rights. Violations of security rights consist ofthe use or the threat to use torture, summary executions, disappearances, and ultimatelygenocide.4 Both leftist (e.g., Stalin’s Russia) and right-wing autocratic regimes (e.g.,Pinochet’s Chili, Argentine under Peron, Franco’s Spain) have been guilty of such atrocitiesthroughout history.

The human rights literature shows a clear connection between political rights andsecurity rights; specifically the more democratic a state is the more likely it will respecthuman rights (Henderson 1991, 1993; Mitchell and McCormick 1988; Poe and Tate 1994;McCormick and Mitchell 1997; Poe, Tate, and Keith 1999). Thus, the relationship betweenpolitical rights, security rights, and terrorist activity is complex. Even once the effect of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

684 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

Figure 2. Relationship between personal security rights and terrorism.

political rights is controlled for, state repression has an independent effect, exacerbating thelikelihood of terrorist activity. When security rights are violated it creates an incentive forpeople to seek extra-systemic means of political expression. Repressive regimes often relyon violence thereby providing justification for opposition groups to resort to violence. TheRed Brigade in Italy, for example, argued that their use of violence was justified becausethe state had already resorted to violence (Whitaker 2003).

Not only does state repression affect the persecuted directly, but the entire state isaffected by the climate of fear that such treatment instills within the citizenry (Lopez andStohl 1992; Poe and Tate 1994). Under such repressive conditions, the question arises, howmuch can individual rebels? Are citizens under these conditions likely to turn to terrorismas a response? This article contends that the relationship between security rights violationsand terrorism is nonlinear in that as the level of repression increases there is a greaterlikelihood of terrorism, which increases as repression increases until a certain threshold isreached (see Figure 2).

The seeds of terrorism are most likely found in states that have some degree ofrepression short of the most abusive regimes in the system. For example, the IRA operatesin a relatively open society that facilitates its continued existence. On the other hand,terrorism research suggests that under the most extreme repressive conditions, domesticterrorism is rare (Weinberg 1991). Extremely repressive regimes are relatively effective atcombating domestic political unrest. For example, under the Khmer Rouge, Cambodianswere less likely to attempt to attack the state. When compared to other states, Cambodiansunder Pol Pot’s regime had less opportunity to develop overt and widespread levels ofresistance.5 In states where repression is the most extreme, terrorist activity against thestate is unlikely.

Subsistence Rights

The last type of rights considered are subsistence rights. Subsistence rights, or basic humanneeds, refer to the necessities of a decent standard of living.6 The lack of basic human

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 685

Figure 3. Relationship between basic human needs and terrorism.

needs runs the gamut from the lack of food or shelter to the lack of employment. On theone hand, security rights violations are pro-active actions against certain citizens by thegovernment. Oftentimes, the targets of such abuse are the potential political oppositionand may only encompass a small percentage of the population. On the other hand, basichuman needs refer to the failure of the government to provide for its citizenry and maysuggest neglect, rather than proactive abuse. This neglect can be intentional in many cases(Somalia for example) or simply a result of the state’s inability to provide for basic humanneeds (as in Haiti). Regardless, citizens suffer. This suffering is prime breeding ground fordiscontent. Those suffering may choose to blame the current regime, or blame other statesfor their condition. Again, this article does not suggest that this relationship is a linear one,but rather an inverted-U. Similar to the theorized relationships presented in the full-bellythesis (Howard 1983) and Fein’s (1995) more murder in the middle thesis, citizens at bothextremes of subsistence are less likely to engage in terrorist activity. This relationship isillustrated by Figure 3.

Those individuals in states at the lowest end of the spectrum are busy strugglingfor personal survival and have little time or energy to expend on the political process ingeneral. De Toqueville argued just this in his analysis of the French Revolution, wherethose clamoring for more rights were the emerging middle class, not the poorest in society.Those individuals in states at the upper end of the spectrum are generally more satisfied interms of basic human needs and therefore are less likely to engage in terrorist activity. Itis those individuals in the middle where terrorist activity is more likely. The middle arearepresents individuals in states who have been exposed to wealth and whose expectationshave risen faster than their economic well-being. Thus, for example, members of the RedBrigade tended to be the working-class or middle-class students in the university system(Whitaker 2003; Combs 2003). Likewise the Baader-Meinhof group of the 1970s in WestGermany was “composed of middle and upper-class intellectuals” (Combs 2003, 59).

Combining the violation of political rights and security rights and sub-optimal levelsof basic human needs, the conditions are ripe for terrorism. Figure 4 illustrates the complexnature of the relationship between terrorism and these different types of rights. It ishypothesized that terrorism is likely to be carried out by individuals in states with mediumlevels of repression as these citizens feel justified in responding to state terror with terrorist

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

686 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

Figure 4. Terrorism and human rights.

acts. Further in states with medium levels of subsistence, citizens are more likely to feeldeprived relative to others and that sense of injustice fosters terrorism. Finally, terrorismis likely to ferment in these areas particularly when individuals feel that other options ofdissent are limited due to the relatively closed political system within the state. It is at thenexus between these three rights that the prime breeding ground for terrorist activity exists.In Figure 4 this is illustrated by the triangle created by points A, B, and C.

International Factors

As states do not exist in a systemic vacuum, a theory of terrorism is not complete withoutthe inclusion of the influence of international factors. This article contends that suchfactors influence terrorism in two ways: from a historical perspective in terms of politicaldevelopment and from a contemporary perspective that addresses among other things, thecurrent distribution of power in the international system.

It is instructive to examine structuralism and its description of the evolution of thepolitical and economic structures of many states. In fact, the extent to which human rights aregranted or denied can often be traced to a state’s colonial experience. Politically, the majorityof states, especially those associated with poor human rights records, developed through theprocess of colonialization and imperialism. The political heritage of this experience cannotbe discounted in explaining human rights conditions in states today. In fact, researchindicates that states colonized by the British have far better human rights conditions thannon-British colonialism (Poe, Tate, and Keith 1999). Moon (1991) compares the Britishlegacy to that of the French, Portuguese, and Belgian, finding that the colonies in theformer faired much better in providing levels of basic human needs. In the case of Africancolonies, “Africans had greater rights to partake of political activities under the British thanthe French, whereas under the Portuguese and the Belgians, there was virtually no freedomat all in this respect” (Moon 1991, 241). The latter states also held on to the colonialpossessions much longer, providing additional impetus for colonial unrest. In fact, Frenchcolonialism has left a legacy of both poor political rights and a history of brutal regimescharacterized by gross human rights violations and repression. These international factorsshape the realization of human rights and therefore cannot be ignored when explaining whyterrorist activity occurs in some states more than others. It is hypothesized that states withmore brutal colonial experiences are more likely to have terrorist activity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 687

Beyond the political development, the economic development of states in the globalSouth was and is still tied to the developed states. The reality of the industrialized north andunderdeveloped south has indeed led to “two faces of development.” This inequity, mostwould agree, continues today and is often cited as a source of discontent among citizens indeveloping states. Additionally, the current era of globalization not only includes the rapidmovement of capital and goods, but also the exportation of many Western norms, values,and perspectives. With improvement in technology and communications, Western andspecifically American ways of life are transported around the globe. This trend, however, isnot welcomed in all parts of the world and is instead viewed as a form of neo-imperialism.

In addition, the distribution of power within the system might provide an impetusfor terrorism. To the extent that states are able to participate in the international system,communicate preferences, and realize some of their policy goals, the more likely they areto participate within the norms of the international system. Conversely, citizens in statesthat perceive their status, goals, and objectives as marginalized by the structure of theinternational system may resort to extra-systemic means to affect change. Primed by poorhuman rights at home and conditioned by constraints placed on them by more powerfulstates in the system, terrorists are able to convert their cause to an international one bymobilizing like-minded individuals across borders. Thus, a highly stratified system willfurther serve as a justification for terrorist activity. In other words, it is hypothesized thatweaker states are the ones most likely to generate terrorist activity.

In sum, the model includes distinct factors that affect the likelihood of terrorist activity.Initially, the influence of the international factors on state development is seen, particularlyon less developed states. Their perceived place and power within the system is or canbecome diminished relative to other states. The marginalized international position of thestate is accompanied by internal or domestic factors that make terrorism more likely. Internalfactors are conditioned specifically by the economic and political factors that influence thehuman condition. Three types of rights are examined; it is argued that in states lackingthese rights, a certain level of discontent within the state as well as within the internationalsystem as a whole can develop. When a certain level of dissatisfaction is reached due tothe human rights conditions within the state and the state is constrained from acting withinthe international system, terrorism is a likely outcome. The case of terrorism in NorthernIreland is examined next.

Human Rights in Northern Ireland: The Rationale for Terrorism?

The Case of Northern Ireland

People everywhere brag and whimper about the woes of their early years, butnothing can compare with the Irish version: the poverty; the shiftless loquaciousalcoholic father; the pious defeated mother moaning by the fire; pompouspriests; bullying schoolmasters; the English and the terrible things they did tous for eight hundred long years—Frank McCourt (1996).

The Irish people have a long history of dissent and resistance to outside rule. Any discussionof rebellion in Ireland can trace its origins hundreds of years. The focus here is limitedto events that shaped the modern-day IRA terrorist group. The Irish Republican Army,also called the Volunteers early on, can trace its heritage back to the Irish RepublicanBrotherhood (hereafter, IRB), a revolutionary group that worked toward independence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

688 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

from Britain. The IRB was founded by James Stephens and Thomas Clarke Luby on St.Patrick’s Day in 1858 (Curtis 2002; Coogan 1993). This movement was born of the Feniantradition (Coogan 1993; Kostick 1996) and built on a tradition of resistance such as that ofthe Phoenix National and Literary Society, which had previously been suppressed by theBritish government (Coogan 1993).

The IRB also had an American wing known as the Clann na Gael or sometimescalled the Organization (Coogan 1993), which would continue to work with the IRA. Therelationship between the IRA and their American Diaspora has a long and quite involvedhistory of cooperation and support. In fact, the Fenian movement was buttressed by theAmerican Civil War, which resulted in increased recruitment and funds for the resistance(Wilson 1995; O’Brien 1999). Moreover, veterans from the American Civil War arrivedin 1865 to train the IRB (Wilson 1995). The importance of Irish Americans for militarytraining, funding, and political pressure would continue to the modern day IRA.

Political autonomy was not the only consideration for the revolutionaries. Economicscarcity and disparity exacerbated divisions within Ireland. British policies that worked tosolidify that economic disparity were perceived by many in Ireland as a systematic attemptto prevent economic growth. For example, the British placed high tariffs on Irish goods,which made it difficult for Irish industrialists to succeed (Kostick 1996). The Irish potatofamine appeared to be reinforced by British authorities, who at the very least had the abilityto dampen its effects. In the end, the famine resulted in as many as one million deathsdue to starvation (Nassar 2005). The British refusal to address the famine exacerbatedthe resentment in Ireland, particularly because the British continued to import food fromIreland while cutting off aid during the famine (Kostick 1996; Stevenson 1996; Nassar2005). As a result, much of the domestic industry in Ireland failed during this time (Kostick1996). Although industry in Ireland was failing in most areas, this was not true throughoutthe country. Industry in the northeastern part of the country was very advanced and thegrowing economic disparity between the Protestant northeast and the Catholic south wouldfurther underscore religious divisions within Ireland (Kostick 1996).

The widespread poverty and starvation experienced in Ireland also motivated a large-scale immigration to America. This immigration would begin a history of cooperationand support among Irish Americans and resistance movements in Ireland. Irish resistancemovements would be able to extract thousands of dollars from the Irish Diaspora andgenerate endorsements from prominent politicians such as President John Tyler, SenatorJames Buchanan, and former president Martin Van Buren (Wilson 1995). The affinitybetween Irish and Irish-American immigrants was forged by forced immigration and aresentment of British policy during the famine, which many immigrants viewed as acalculated policy of genocide (Wilson 1995; O’Brien 1999).

The spark that helped ignite the revolutionary movement occurred in the early 1900s,when a promised Home Rule bill was suspended (Kostick 1996; Coogan 1993). The resultwas the realization by some that they would be better off fighting for independence thanwaiting for Westminster to grant even a limited degree of autonomy. Moreover, the uprisingappealed to labor movements who felt increasingly exploited by businesses in the North(Kostick 1996). Thus, the Easter Uprising represents a shift in which the working classwould become an essential part of the resistance to British rule. Here again, the issue ofHome Rule is influenced by the Irish Diaspora in America. Money was collected to lobbyAmerican politicians for support, which persuaded both President Taft and former PresidentTheodore Roosevelt to endorse Home Rule (Wilson 1995). The question of Home Rule wastemporarily suspended when Britain became engaged in its Great War. The suspension ofHome Rule, which appeared to some young Irishmen as a stall tactic to autonomy, wouldhelp spur the first popular increase in IRA membership.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 689

As the British struggled to fight the Great War, discontent among the Irish working andmiddle class became widespread (Kostick 1996). The discontent was exacerbated by Britishpolicies designed to feed the war machine without regard for the average Irishman. As wagesdeclined and inflation rose, the need for war-related goods had British officials passing lawsto prevent Irishmen from changing jobs (Kostick 1996). Pressure from the British govern-ment for Irishmen to enlist increased, as figures showed that only 5 percent of Irishmenhad joined the army compared to 17 percent of men from Wales, England, and Scotland(Foster 1988). The rapidly deteriorating economic situation, combined with the increasedmomentum of the antiwar movement, resulted in a significant expansion of Sinn Fein mem-bership between 1917 and 1919 (Cahill 1990). Irish revolutionaries also viewed the Britishpreoccupation with the Great War as an opportunity to achieve independence (Nassar 2005).

A direct result of the suspension of Home Rule and subsequent Great War was thefirst attempt to declare independence—the Easter Uprising. About 1,000 men from the IRBand the Volunteers would attempt to seize the post office and other buildings in Dublin andproclaim an Irish Republic (Curtis 2002). Once again the Irish Diaspora in America woulddirectly support the revolutionary activity in its home land, by way of the Clann na Gael,where “Clan leaders helped plan the Easter Rising of 1916, sent vital funds to the IRB, andconsulted with the German ambassador in New York to arrange arms shipments to supplythe rebels” (Wilson 1995, 12). The uprising had little hope of success and in the end Britishforces responded with repression and executed the leaders.

The British response to the uprising enraged much of the Catholics in Ireland andhelped Sinn Fein gain an overwhelming victory in the next election (Nassar 2005). OnceSinn Fein held the vast majority of parliamentary seats, they refused to go to London, andinstead met in Dublin calling themselves the Irish House of Deputies (Nassar 2005). Thiswould lead the country into a civil war that would end when Ireland was divided into twoparts. In the South, the Irish would continue fighting, no longer satisfied with self-rule, untilthey achieved independence in 1949. The strategy for the IRA “never aimed at achievinga military victory over the British. They hoped that through a series of guerrilla actionsthey could wear the enemy down. Essential in this strategy was the battle for internationalpublic opinion, especially that in America. IRA leaders believed that hostile opinion wouldpressure the British to make some concessions on Irish independence” (Wilson 1995,13–14; see also Cox 1997). However, the war of independence created a cycle of terror andrepression that resulted in broadened appeal of the IRA. It would also serve to reinforcethe divisions between the Catholic minority, who were also more likely to be economicallydeprived in the north, and the Ulster majority.

The partition of Ireland was never truly accepted by the nationalists in NorthernIreland. During the 1960s, the movement toward independence would mutate into a civilrights campaign, modeled on the Civil Rights Movement in the United States (Cannon2003; Livingstone 2001). The shift emphasized representation, economic inequality, andcivil rights over independence. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association demanded anend to job discrimination and housing inequality, electoral discrimination, as well as an endto emergency legislation (Nassar 2005). At the same time, the IRA experienced a respite inactivity. This shift from violent protest to more traditional forms of civil disobedience mighthave lasted, but for the Protestant population in Northern Ireland. Protestants saw the civilrights movement as a threat to their way of life and responded with violence (Nassar 2005).

The British government reacted by abolishing the Parliament and reoccupying NorthernIreland, which led to a surge in both IRA membership and its popularity. The popularityof the IRA was spurred on by British policies including “the growth of the Civil Rightsmovement, the Falls Road curfew of July, 1970, the unilateral introduction of internmentin August 1971, when no Protestants were interned” (Coogan 1993, 260). The willingness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

690 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

of the British government to respond with repression solidified people’s willingness torespond with violence and buttressed the IRA movement anew. For instance, on BloodySunday when British paratroopers opened fire on an unarmed civil rights procession inDerry the response was countrywide indignation (Coogan 1993). British repression wouldincrease in response to civil unrest, which led to widespread acceptance of Irish methodsof terror, which, in turn, resulted in greater British repression. The effect was a cycle ofviolence, terrorism, and state repression that resulted in more than 3,500 people killedbetween 1972 and 1995 (Fay, Morrissey, and Smyth 1999). The next section examines eachof the hypotheses outlined by the model of terrorism in terms of the Irish case. It begins byexamining the international influences that help shape the IRA movement.

International influence

I sent thousands of guns to Ireland, and I’d do it again tomorrow. I’m only sorrythat I didn’t send more.—George Harrison quoted in Adams 1986b, 134.

The IRA case is illustrative of the role of international influence in terrorism. Thisinfluence manifested itself in several ways. First, as discussed in the historical overview,Britain’s domination and subjugation of first Ireland and then Northern Ireland plantedseeds of discontent and rebellion. The actual and perceived political, economic, andsocial discrimination systematically fostered generation after generation of disaffectedIrish Catholics. Thus, the relationship between the British crown, the dominant colonialand imperialist power, and its Irish subjects was not that different from other colonialrelationships around the world. In addition, Great Britain’s status as a world power madethem relatively immune to world opinion regarding their “troubles” in Northern Ireland.They were consistently able to placate international organizations and commissions, even tothe point of pressuring the ECHR to change an original conviction of torture to a convictionof cruel and unusual treatment (Millet 1994).

The Cold War also influenced the activities of the members of the IRA. In a classic,“enemy of my enemy” scenario, Libya’s President Qaddafi, “in a gesture of revolutionarysolidarity, decided to take revenge on the British for supporting the United States bysupplying the IRA with a massive arsenal” (Cox 1997, 682; see also O’Brien 1999; Coogan1996; Crozier 1988). Additional support was found in movements claiming solidaritywith the Irish cause. The IRA Provisionals attracted support and solidarity with groupsfrom Western Europe especially France and Spain, the Middle East, and Latin Americaas well as the Soviet bloc (Crozier 1988, 26). Indeed, early seeds of the resistance wereinfluenced by the Russian Revolution, where “[o]n receiving the news of the October 1917Russian Revolution, 10,000 workers attended a rally in Dublin to show their support for theRevolution” (Kostick 1996). In addition, the two world wars also presented opportunities forhelp and support from abroad (English 2003). During World War II, the Nazis made severalattempts at collaboration with the IRA (Coogan 1993, 158). Funding from these groupswas based on ideology; funding from the United States, however, was based on kinship.

When the Provos broke from the Originals, money was the primary concern—moneyand weapons. Although Adams (1986b) suggests that the amount of money received fromthe United States has been overstated, the unwavering support from Irish Americans speaksto the kinship ties reminiscent of other Diaspora cases, such as the support Israel receivesfrom Jewish Americans, or the continued support of Polish Americans to the Solidaritytrade union throughout the 1970s and 1980s.7 In the case of the IRA, there was long-term

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 691

significant support in training, funding, and public opinion from the United States.Revolutionaries in Ireland received support that dates back to the American Civil War,where both training and supplies were brought across the ocean. The mass immigrationof the potato famine only increased this tie and resulted in the American Clann na Gael.The events of the Easter Uprising led to many Irish men and women immigrating to theUnited States. It was these ex-patriots who served as the link between the United Statesand Ireland. Adams (1986b, 134) goes so far as to argue that the survival of the IRA wasin part due to the fact that “[t]he enormous Irish-American population has always felt astrong sentimental attachment to ‘the old country’ and this has been translated into a steadystream of cash and guns to the IRA.”

English (2003) finds that fund-raising efforts in the United States were the primarysource of the new Provisionals. Groups and individuals such as the Irish Northern AidCommittee (Noraid), George Harrison and Michael Flannery (Adams 1986b; English 2003)provided money and weapons to the IRA. These weapons included “[h]undreds of light,powerful, collapsible, concealable Armalite rifles found their way to Ireland during the1970s through this connection. In 1971 the security forces in the north of Ireland capturedabout 700 weapons, two tons of explosives and 157,000 rounds of ammunition; the bulk ofthe weapons and ammunition came from the USA” (English 2003, 115–117). The Britishgovernment long claimed that Noraid was funneling cash to the IRA (Belluck 1995). Inmore recent times, Gerry Adams has toured the United States raising money for the cause(Belluck 1995).

In terms of the present model, what is clear from this is the important role internationalfactors play in the survival and development of the IRA. However, although the British treat-ment of the Irish and then the Northern Irish was horrific at times, it was not more brutal thanother colonial experiences such as the French in Algeria or the Belgian domination of theCongo. Absent a systematic test, there is not strong support for the hypothesis that the morebrutal colonial experiences are more likely to have terrorist activity. As for the hypothesisregarding the structure of the international system, there is greater support. The Irish fightingfor first Home Rule and later independence clearly felt marginalized by the internationalsystem, particularly when the British were able to escape international commendation fortheir treatment of the Irish. It is found that the ability of the Irish to garner support fromabroad was significant in the development of the IRA. So, although international influenceplays a critical role in a terrorist movement’s ability to sustain itself and even expand, it isviolations of distinct types of human rights that create the impetus for domestic support ofterrorist activity. Thus how each of these types of rights decrease human security in generaland create the conditions for widespread support of terrorism is now examined.

Subsistence Rights Violations

This section begins by examining whether subsistence rights were important in thedevelopment of terrorist activity in Ireland. It is hypothesized that, in general, citizenswith middle levels of subsistence would be more likely to support terrorist activity than thepoorest or the wealthiest citizens. To examine how the troubles in Northern Ireland relateto issues of subsistence or basic human needs one can look at the Universal Declarationof Human Rights (UN, 1948), its subsequent covenants, and the European Social Charter.These documents call for “free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions ofwork and to protection against unemployment” (UDHR, Article 23); an adequate standardof living (UDHR, Article 25; ICESC Part II, Article 11); right to education (UDHR, Article26; ICES Part II, Article 13); “the opportunity to earn his living in an occupation freely

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

692 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

entered upon” (Social Charter, Part I.1); and “fair wages, decent living, safe and healthyworking conditions” (ICESC Part II, Article 7).

Economic disparity was rampant in Ireland. As illustrated in the case study, Britishtariffs seemed designed to prevent Ireland from industrializing. In fact, in the early 1900s,Sinn Fein pushed for Ireland to use protectionist measures to build up its infant industry.In addition to protectionism, Sinn Fein called on Irishmen to only buy Irish goods. Thisexcerpt from a party pamphlet illustrates the point:

It is your right to compel your tailor, if he is unwilling to make your coatof Irish cloth; to compel your grocer to sell you Irish eggs; to compel yourpublic servants to acquire some knowledge of the Irish language and help IrishIndustries.

To the extent that industrialization did occur, it was typically concentrated in the ProtestantNorth. Moreover the Irish have never really forgiven the British for their part in the Irishpotato famine, which took a million lives and another million in immigration. During WorldWar I, the situation worsened. Inflation eroded wages, the cost of living more than doubledit pre-war levels, and the already high rates of poverty increased during the war years. Inthis environment Sinn Fein membership experienced a significant growth spurt.

The economic discrimination against Ireland also manifests itself in job discriminationagainst Catholics. Generally, job discrimination was widespread with Catholic men2.2 times and Catholic women 1.8 times more likely to be unemployed than theirProtestant counterparts (Knox 2000). There also existed a gap in the hiring practicesfor white-collar positions, where “Protestant men were over-represented in security andprotective service occupations, managerial and administrative occupations, and skilledengineering occupations” (Knox 2000, 52–53). The result was under representation byCatholics “in the workforce since 1921, and discrimination was one of the main triggers forthe Troubles. . . . In 1995 Catholic men were still almost twice as likely to be unemployed,although the differential was diminishing slowly” (Darby 1997, 48).

The economic discrimination was so complete that “on virtually every indicatorof socio-economic disadvantage, Catholics still experience higher levels of need ordisadvantage than Protestants” (Darby 1997, 60). In fact, Roman Catholics in Ireland havelong complained of discrimination in education, housing, and employment. For example,the Education Act 1930 had been tailored by Protestant pressure and resulted in a Protestantdominated educational experience (Darby 1997, 28–29). Similarly, the discrimination ofemployment in the police force in Northern Ireland is seen as both a catalyst and a contributorto political and civil rights violations. The police force and reserves are overwhelmingProtestant, contributing to the notion that unfair hiring practices exist in the public sector(Knox 2000, Whyte 1983). Darby (1997) reports that Catholics only accounted for 12percent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and basically none were members of theauxiliary “B” Specials, which were exclusively Protestant.

It is hypothesized that terrorism was more likely to arise where states have beenexposed to some levels of wealth, such that expectations increase at a faster rate thaneconomic well-being. Indeed, this contention seems to be borne out by the Irish case,where rises in terrorism were preceded by slight improvements in economic standing.Thus, the Irish potato famine did not mark the genesis of the IRB, rather it was in theearly 1900s, after the general population experienced slight improvements in standards ofliving. The fact that these improvements were by in large enjoyed by the Protestant Northno doubt fueled the drive for action among southern Catholics. It was the marginalization

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 693

of Catholics relative to the Protestant population that facilitated support for terrorism. Next,political and civil rights in Ireland are examine.

Political and Civil Rights Violations

I was only a working-class boy from a Nationalist ghetto, but it is repressionthat created the revolutionary spirit of freedom. I shall not settle until I achieveliberation of my country, until Ireland becomes a sovereign, independentsocialist republic.—Bobby Sands

This section hypothesizes that less civil and political rights would lead to increases interrorist activity. Indeed, Republicans point to repeated and institutionalized political, social,and economic discrimination at the hands of both the British and the Unionists as a rationalefor rebellion and terrorism. As the aforementioned case illustrates, the promise and thensuspension of Home Rule helped spark the revolutionary movement that would becomethe IRA. Irishmen were denied self-government and often persecuted for speaking againstthe British. The denial of these rights was exacerbated by World War I, when Irishmenwere going off to war and dying for their occupiers. It was in this environment that theSinn Fein membership experienced its first real growth. Thus, the issue of political andcivil rights is at the heart of the “Irish question.” Perceived and actual deprivation of theserights has served as the catalyst for much of the terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. Theemergence of the IRA was based in the British government’s denial of basic civil andpolitical rights to the Catholic population. In fact, Whyte (1983, 30) found that between1921 and 1968 there was a “consistent and irrefutable pattern of deliberate discriminationagainst Catholics in the following areas: electoral practices, public employment, policing,private employment, public housing and regional policy.” It was in response to thesegrievances that the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland began.

One of the central concerns for Catholics in Northern Ireland was the lack ofrepresentation in parliament. Catholics living in Northern Ireland felt discriminated againstbecause Protestants often gerrymandered to maintain control of most parliamentaryseats (Knox 2000; Whyte 1983; Darby 1997). When the British government abolishedproportional representation in the 1920s “the geographical arrangement of constituenciesaffected a great increase in the size of the Parliamentary majority. This situationunderstandably disenchanted the Catholic community” (ECHR 1978, #18). Due to thispolitical reality, Protestants were able to maintain a permanent majority until direct rulewas instituted in 1972.

Although the IRA is only a small portion of the Catholic community, the community atlarge has expressed discontent with the Unionist government. The Cameron Commissionfound that the grievances aired by the Catholics, especially “those concerned with theallocation of houses, local authority appointments, limitations on local electoral franchiseand deliberate manipulation of ward boundaries and electoral areas” (ECHR 1978, #19)were justified. In addition, the ECHR concluded that “there certainly was an element ofinherent bias in the whole political system in Northern Ireland in favor of one community”(ECHR 1978, #19).

In reaction to the discrepancy in laws, the ill treatment at the hands of the police, thearbitrary detention, and a host of economic complaints, the Catholics turned to marchesand protests, modeling their activities after the United States Civil Rights Movements.Livingstone (2001, 50) argues that “[t]he civil rights movement of the mid and late

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

694 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

1960s . . . pushed above all for equality rights, notably in the spheres of voting, housing,and public employment. Allied to these was a broad range of other civil rights claims,notably to free expression, free assembly and fairness in the criminal justice system, whichcrystallized in demands for the repeal of the Special Powers Acts, 1922–33.” In the 1960s,the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association issued a specific set of demands including, acall for one person, one vote; an end to gerrymandering and unfair housing and employmentpractices and perhaps most importantly, the repeal of the repressive Special Powers Act(Sinn Fein Online; Nassar 2005).

The marches and protests that accompanied these demands were met by stiff resistancefrom the government. According to Sinn Fein, “. . . the violent reaction of the state shockedthe world as television cameras relayed scenes of unprovoked attacks on civil rights marchesand demonstrations.” In addition, Sinn Fein reports that participants in marches during1968–69 were “beaten off the streets by the RUC and unionist mobs backed up by theRUC reserve, the B-Specials. British troops are deployed allegedly to keep the peace buteffectively to back up the RUC” (Sinn Fein). The European Commission on Human Rightsreported that such marches “led to clashes with the police and to violent confrontation withProtestant counter-demonstrators, often armed with cudgels, stones and the like” (ECHR1978, #22). One of the most violent instances of repression occurred in 1972, when apeaceful civil rights demonstration ended in violence after police fired on the crowd. Theevent, known as Bloody Sunday, would help solidify the increased popularity of the IRA.

The Northern Irish Civil Rights Movement indicates that the masses were attemptingto change policies. The British government responded with a suspension of a host of civiland political rights, thus, effectively closing off the option of peaceful protest and ultimatelyusing repression as a tool. In response, terrorist activity in Ireland generated widespreadsupport. Here, evidence is found that as political openness decreases, the likelihood ofterrorism activity increases. In essence, however, the IRA is ultimately responding to aviolation of security rights that results from their push for political and civil rights. Giventhe case of the IRA, the denial of civil and political rights alone would be insufficientto create widespread support for a terrorist movement. However, the denial of civil andpolitical rights when combined with the violation of security rights creates a general senseof injustice in society and creates the prime breeding ground for terrorist activity. The roleof security rights is examined in the next section.

Security Rights Violations

“It has been said that most revolutions are not caused by revolutionaries in thefirst place, but by the stupidity and brutality of governments. Well, you hadthat to start with in the north all right.”—Sean MacStiofain, quoted in English2003, 134

In terms of security rights, it is hypothesized that a decrease in security rights will generatean increase in terrorist activity, short of the most repressive regimes. Violations of securityrights in Northern Ireland can be most visibly seen in the treatment of prisoners at thehands of the British. This also portrays the traditional debate within the terrorist literature.From the perspective of an Irish republican or IRA member, they are freedom fighters orrevolutionaries. From the British perspective, they are terrorists. One believes that theyare members of an army fighting against tyranny; the other believes they are dealing withterrorists.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 695

Each time the British government used repression, the result was an increase in thepopularity of the IRA within Ireland. The IRA experienced its first surge in popularity asa result of the British reaction to the Easter Uprising. The British response to the EasterUprising was a show of force that culminated in the execution of the leaders of the Uprising.In the end, a large portion of Dublin lay in ruins and over 250 civilians were dead (Nassar2005). The Uprising, which had not started out with widespread popular support, ended withwidespread resentment against the British. The account of how the Easter Uprising wouldmotivate Liam Deasy to join the IRA is illustrative of the effect the British response had:

In consequence of the events that occurred in the decisive week of theEaster Rising in 1916, and more particularly of the events that followedit, thousands of young men all over Ireland, indeed thousands of mean ofall ages in the country, turned irrevocably against the English governmentand became uncompromisingly dedicated to the cause of obliterating the lastvestiges of British rule in Ireland. I was one of them. (Liam Deasy quoted inEnglish 2003, 4)

This event helped Sinn Fein gain 73 of Ireland’s 105 seats in Britain’s Parliament in the 1918election (Nassar 2005). This trend of repression by the government followed by increasedpopularity of the resistance would continue throughout the twentieth century.

Certainly, the start of the modern troubles was buoyed by Bloody Sunday, whicheffectively removed the incentive for peaceful protests. The Civil Rights movement inIreland was gaining momentum and thousands of Irish were using peaceful protests anddemonstrations to press their demands to the British government. Thus, when the policeresponded to a peaceful protest with repression, the protestors may have felt there was nomoral reason not to respond in kind. The effects of the state repression were to help usherin the recent troubles as the IRA experienced a surge in popularity.

A succession of special or emergency legislation since the 1920s cultivated anenvironment of repression, at least from the perspective of the Republicans (Whyte 1983;Darby 1997; Knox 2000). These pieces of legislation allowed for such violations asinternment without trial, arbitrary detainment, and interrogation (1971 Special PowersAct). According to Human Rights Watch, the British government responded to the conflictin Northern Ireland

by imposing a draconian emergency regime that invests the RUC with expansivepolice powers to stop, question, arrest, detain, and interrogate persons merelysuspected of terrorist activity. For example, people can be stopped, questioned,and searched without “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity; detainees canbe held for up to seven days without charge; access to counsel can be deferredfor the first forty-eight hours of detention; and the common law right to silencehas been effectively abrogated. (Human Rights in Northern Ireland 1991, 3–4).

There were two techniques in particular that warrant specific attention. The first wasinternment without trial, which was introduced in 1971 to respond to the violence in Ireland.Internment was viewed with widespread contempt among Irish. It did, however, producesome tangible results. Coogan (1993) argues that one result of internment was a decrease inrioting and an increase in bombing, shooting of security forces, and improved propagandatechniques. The reaction of the Catholic community was severe, as pointed out by the 1978European Court of Human Rights: “The introduction of internment provoked a violent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

696 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

reaction from the Catholic community and the IRA. . . . Within the minority communitythere occurred a further alienation from the authorities and the security forces, togetherwith a rise in support for the IRA” (ECHR 1979, #420). The internment without trial wasfollowed by the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in 1973,which enhanced the army’s power to stop and detain, abolished jury trials, and introducedfar-reaching changes in the rules of evidence (ECHR 1979, #34). This stripping away ofcivil rights for Catholic Irish facilitated increased security rights violations.

The second technique used by the British was the criminalization policy, which involvedthe removal of political status of IRA prisoners (Sinn Fein Online). Whereas IRA prisonersviewed themselves as prisoners of war, the British viewed them as criminals. This policycan be viewed as an attempt by the British to decrease the popularity of the IRA. It alsospawned an H-block blanket protest, where inmates would refuse to wear clothes and workin the prison (Millett 1994; Coogan 1993). The British response to the blanket protest was towithdraw privileges and refuse to let unclothed prisoners leave their cells “until the prisonersended up in cells befouled with their own excrement, wearing nothing but blankets, some-times for periods of over three years” (Coogan 1993, 305). Millett argues that the criminal-ization policy made the issues between the two sides more complex; it facilitated British tor-ture of IRA prisoners (Millet 1994). The culmination of the internment policy and the crim-inalization policy was institutionalized state torture of those arrested during the Troubles.

Millet (1994) provides a graphic illustration of the techniques employed by the Britishgovernment and Unionists police forces, including the use of a black hood, loud monotonousnoise to achieve sensory depravation, which along with sleep deprivation constituted“a perfect regimen of psychological torture” (Millet 1994, 101). Bobby Sands wouldexperience the Irish prisons first hand, and he offered the following testimony regardinghis treatment while in prison.

I was spreadeagled against the wall with my finger tips only, high up against thewall and my feet spread apart and back as far as I could manage. The detectivewho was reeking with alcohol was punching me in the kidneys, sides, back,neck, in fact everywhere. . . . I was threatened that my wife would be broughtin to where I was and that she would also get what I got even though she waspregnant. . . . I was still spread eagled. When he sat to the front of me, on myleft hand side, he was swinging his foot between my legs and kicking me inthe privates. He hit me about four or six times likes this which sickened meand took the breath from me . . . .I had been interrogated and beaten for aboutseven hours or so with only a break for the doctor to examine me.” (Originallyquoted in The H Blocks, reprinted in Millet 1994, 103–104)

With each successive piece of legislation passed designed to thwart Republican resistanceand rebellion, the state steadily increased their ability to repress. The Special Powers Actsof the 1920s allowed for internment without trial, the Special Powers Acts of the 1970s(in response to the Civil Rights movement) allowed for detention and intimidation, theEmergency Provisions Act of 1973 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1975 added tothe state’s ability to wield unfettered power. Taken collectively, the state was able to meteout excessive sentences, often times twenty years or more, for certain types of “scheduled”offenses, that is “any type of offense connected with the political situation. Interrogationcenters were set up and civil liberties suspended; confessions were frequently the resultof tortures” (Millet 1994, 101). The result was that human rights abuse claims rose in the1970s and “began to include claims of especially grave breaches of human rights such as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 697

arbitrary killing, torture, detention without trial and miscarriages of justice” (Livingstone2001, 50).

The violations of these types of rights are often cited as reasons for joining the IRA.Whereas denial of security rights and political rights lay the groundwork for the genesisof terrorist organizations, it is only when the state itself engages in state terror that theappeal of terrorist tactics becomes widespread. State terror, then, can be viewed as anecessary condition for widespread appeal of terrorism within a state. This is illustrated byfirsthand accounts of individuals who joined the terrorist organization. Stevenson (1996),for example, outlines the story of Umberto Scappaticci who came from a middle classfamily in heavily Catholic Newry. Umberto’s cousin had been involved in the IRA andthe army hassled both Umberto and his father on suspicion of this association. Althoughhe was not involved with the IRA at that time, his experience at the hands of the armyand the rough interrogations motivated him to join (Stevenson 1996). Anthony McIntyre(English 2003, 123) revealed a similar motivation when interviewed: “Why did I becomeinvolved in the IRA? It was because of a process of British state repression as clearlydistinct from any sort of attachment to republican ideology.” In his book, Gerry Adamssuggests a similar motivation. After hearing of a riot and the resulting RUC which left 71people in the hospital, Adams concluded “I already possessed a vague sense of discontentand the naked display of state violence against the people of the Falls made me feel I didnot want merely to stand by looking on” (Adams 1986a, 2). Within a few months, GerryAdams had joined the Sinn Fein. The necessary condition for justifying terrorism on a largescale is that the state resorted to terrorism first.

The violations of political rights and the lack of subsistence rights was importantmotivation, to be sure. State violations of these rights might motivate a small-scale terrorcampaign. However, for the terrorists’ organization to have mass appeal, these violationsmust be accompanied by a sense that the state employed violence against the masses thatjustifies the use of violence in response. Moreover, Cox argues that the country’s long-termmemory and sense of tradition underscore the citizens’ ability to morally justify the use ofviolence against the British government (Cox 1997). Thus, members of the modern day IRAremember not only recent internment practices, but also a long-term history of subjugationunder British rule. It was in this environment that terrorism became so commonplace fromthe 1970s to the 1990s.

It is theorized that terrorism would most likely occur where security rights are violated,short of the most repressive regimes. In fact, increases in terrorist activity in Ireland havealways been preceded by increases in state repression. The state repression consistentlytargeted a particular segment of society, rather than being comprehensive state terrorismapplied indiscriminately throughout the population. Although the British government usedtactics against the IRA that were highly oppressive, they are clearly not one of the mostoppressive regimes. It appears that repression by a state government can shift support forterrorism from a pocket of radicals to widespread support in a society. It is such widespreadsupport that makes terrorist activity more successful and simultaneously more difficult tocombat.

Conclusion

This article set out to examine a theoretical framework of terrorism in light of the case ofterrorism in Ireland. It was hypothesized that violations of human rights were at the originand development of terrorist organizations. It explored the three categories of human rights,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

698 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

and how each of these categories contributed to the development and widespread appeal ofthe IRA in the twentieth century, as well as how the international environment contributes tothe success of terrorist activity. In terms of international factors, terrorism flourished in theBritish colonial experience, even though the British colonies are generally not consideredas brutal as the Portuguese, French, or Belgium colonizers. It is clear however, that the Irishwere relatively weak and in effect marginalized by the international system.

Although the international environment plays an important role in constraining orenabling the growth of terrorist activity, overall, the authors found that threats to humansecurity are directly related to the development and growth of terrorism. Catholics havelong suffered economic and social discrimination, and have been treated by the state as asubclass whose economic rights were either ignored or abused. Moreover, Catholics oftenrefer to the denial of political and civil rights in Ireland as the impetus for support ofterrorism. The violation of both of these rights created an environment that was conduciveto the development of terrorism. However, it is the state violation of security rights whichin fact appears to be a necessary condition for the creation of terrorism. Although the denialof all rights creates a class of people who feel disenfranchised and are more likely to seekextra-systemic means of redress, it is only when the government engages in state terror thatthe appeal of terrorism moves into widespread support.

This model represents an advance in the study of terrorism to a more comprehensivestudy. This model of terrorism accurately depicts the relationship between terrorist activityand human security, but the authors acknowledge that future research is necessary toadvance understanding of terrorism. Their intention is to develop a generalizable modelthat can be empirically tested. The use of a case study here represents an initial test oftheir theory. Future research should focus on collecting data on the genesis and growthof terrorist activity to conduct more systematic tests of this hypothesis.8 Nonetheless, thisarticle represents a necessary first step in changing the scope of terrorist research to movetoward a more comprehensive, generalizable understanding of the causes of terrorism.

Notes

1. This article defines human rights as rights that an individual has simply because they arehuman (Donnelly 1998). The definition includes disparate types of human rights such as political andcivil rights, security rights, and subsistence rights. These three types of rights collectively constitutehuman security. Each type of rights is defined and discussed independently in subsequent sections.

2. It is acknowledged that some groups may include multiple targets, whereas other groupsmay inadvertently hit civilians while targeting the government. In terms of measuring terrorism, athreshold is envisioned of at least a majority of a group’s targets that must be aimed at civilians for itto be classified as a terrorist group. The focus for empirical researchers should be the intended target,acknowledging that in any warfare some unintended targets will always be hit. Although no definitionor measurement rule in political science is without flaw or criticism, this decision rule reasonablyallows researchers to distinguish between types of conflict without reference to whether they feel theconflict is a justified independence movement or other normative judgments. Like other measures inpolitical science, this is not perfect, but such a refinement of the definition of terrorism does representa significant improvement and would facilitate future empirical research.

3. In considering how researchers might measure this type of rights, there is a plethora of dataavailable. The Comparative Survey of Freedom, also known as Freedom House, scores a countryon two different measures—political rights and civil liberties. These variables consist of seven-pointscales and are derived from media reports. The U.S. Department of State publishes annual countryreports that include sections titled, “Respect for Civil Rights,” which reports on the freedom ofspeech and press, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion, and freedom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 699

of movement. Another section reports on citizens’ right to change their government. The WorldHandbook of Political and Social Indicators further contains national aggregate data for countriesand includes such topics as press freedom, electoral irregularity, and protest demonstrations. Theseand other such measures are aimed at identifying the level of political rights and civil liberties affordedto citizens.

4. This definition of security rights is derived from Gastil (1980). Subsequent research hasquantified this taxonomy utilizing U.S. State Department Country Reports and the Annual Reportsfrom Amnesty International (Gibney and Dalton 1996; Carleton and Stohl 1987; Poe and Tate 1994).Several data sets are available to measure such types of state repression and gross human rightsviolations. The Political Terror Scale (PTS) analyzes both U.S. State Department Country Reportsand the Annual Reports from Amnesty International in order to ascertain the level of political terrorwithin each state (the PTS was created at Purdue University; see also Gibney and Dalton 1996;Carleton and Stohl 1987; Poe and Tate 1994). This data has been used extensively in researchon the determinants of human rights violations (Poe and Tate 1994; Poe, Tate, and Keith 1999;Harrelson-Stephens and Callaway 2003). The latest attempt to measure physical abuse by the state isthe scale offered by Cingranelli and Richards (1999).

5. Certainly, even in the most totalitarian regimes there is some level of resistance. However,the more total the control of the state within a society, the less widespread any resistance movementis likely to be.

6. The Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) by Morris (1979; 1996) and the HumanDevelopment Index (HDI) offered by the UN are two examples currently developed to measuresubsistence rights. Research has used the former extensively in attempting to explain the determinantsof the levels of subsistence within states (Moon 1991; Milner 1998; Callaway 2001; Callaway andHarrelson-Stephens 2004).

7. Adams (1986b, 5) suggested that a significant amount of funding for the IRA came fromracketeering and the Irish mafia: “[t]his IRA does not have as many Swiss bank accounts as the PLO,but it does have protection rackets and money-laundering operations that are more reminiscent of theMafia than a Marxist organization.”

8. Although most of the data to test the model is available in some form, there is no adequatemeasure of terrorist activity. Collection of this type of data is the next step in advancing this line ofresearch. Certainly, in the meantime, tests of future case studies would be appropriate in honing thepresented model.

References

Adams, Gerry 1986a. Politics of Irish Freedom. Kerry: Brandon Book Publishers.Adams, James 1986b. The Financing of Terror: How the Groups that are Terrorizing the World Get

the Money to Do It. New York: Simon and Schuster.Belluck, Pam. 1995. “Sinn Fein’s Leader Raises Funds in U.S. for First Time.” New York Times.

March 13, Section A, Page 2, Column 3.Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce 2000. Principles of International Politics: People’s Power, Preferences,

and Perceptions. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Cahill, L. 1990. Forgotten Revolution, Limerick Soviet 1919. Dublin: O’Brien.Callaway, Rhonda L. 2001. Ph.D. Dissertation. “Is the Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions? The

Effect of U.S Foreign Assistance and Economic Policy on Human Rights.” Denton: Universityof North Texas.

Callaway, Rhonda L., and Julie Harrelson-Stephens. 2004. “The Path from Trade to Human Rights:The Democracy and Development Detour,” in Understanding Human Rights Violations: NewSystematic Studies, edited by Steven Poe, and Sabine Carey, Ashgate Publishing, pp. 87–109.

Cannon, Matt 2003. “Human Security and Education in a Conflict Society: Lessons from NorthernIreland,” in Comparative Education, Terrorism and Human Security: From Critical Pedagogyto Peace Building, edited by Wayne Nelles, New York: Palgrave, pp. 127–140.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

700 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

Carleton, David, and Michael Stohl. 1987. “The Role of Human Rights in U.S. Foreign AssistancePolicy.” American Journal of Political Science 31, pp. 1002–1018.

Cingranelli, David L., and David L. Richards. 1999. “Measuring the Level, Pattern, and Sequenceof Government Respect for Physical Integrity Rights.” International Studies Quarterly 43, pp.407–417.

Combs, Cindy C. 2003. Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Coogan, Tim Pat 1993. The IRA: A History. Colorada: Roberts Rinehart Publishers.Coogan, Tim Pat 1996. The Troubles: Ireland’s Ordeal 1966–1996 and the Search for Peace. Boulder,

CO: Roberts Rinehart Publishers.Cooper, H. H. A. 2001. “Terrorism: The Problem of Definition Revisited.” American Behavioral

Scientist 44, pp. 891–893.Cox, Michael 1997. “Bringing in the ‘international’: the IRA ceasefire and the end of the Cold War.”

International Affairs 73, pp. 671–691.Crenshaw, Martha 1981. “The Causes of Terrorism.” Comparative Politics 13, pp. 379–399.Crenshaw, Martha 1995. Terrorism in Context. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.Crozier, Brian 1988. “The IRA’s International.” National Review (4 March), p. 26.Curtis, Edmund 2002. A History of Ireland. New York: Routledge.Darby, John 1997. Scorpions in a Bottle: Conflicting Cultures in Northern Ireland. London: Minority

Rights Publications.Donnelly, Jack 1998. International Human Rights. Boulder: Westview Press.English, Richard 2003. “Armed Struggle,” The History of the IRA. London: Oxford University Press.Essman, Milton J. 1994. Ethnic Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Eubank, William L. and Leonard B. Weinberg. 1994. “Does Democracy Encourage Terrorism?”

Terrorism and Political Violence 6(4), pp. 47–35.European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 1979. “Ireland v. The United Kingdom (5310/71)” [1978]

ECHR 1 (18 January 1978).Fay, Marie-Therese, Mike Morrissey, and Marie Smyth. 1999. Northern Ireland’s Troubles: The

Human Costs. London: Va Pluto Press.Fein, Helen 1995. “More Murder in the Middle: Life Integrity Violations and Democracy in the

World, 1987.” Human Rights Quarterly 17, pp. 170–191.Foster, R. F. 1988. Modern Ireland 1600–1972. London: Allen Lane.Gastil, Raymond 1980. Freedom in the World Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1980. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Gibney, Mark, and Matthew Dalton. 1996. in The Political Terror Scale: Human Rights and

Developing Countries, edited by David Cingranelli, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press,pp. 73–84.

Goldstein, Robert Justin 1992. “Limitations of Quantitative Data in Studying Human Rights Abuses,”in Human Rights and Statistics, edited by Thomas Jabine, and Richard P. Claude, Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania, pp. 35–61.

Gurr, Ted Robert. 1979. “Some Characteristics of Political Terrorism in the 1960s.” in edited by ThePolitics of Terrorism, Michael Stohl, New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 119–143.

Hamilton, Lawrence C. 1978. “Ecology of Terrorism: A Historical and Statistical Study.” PhDDissertation: University of Colorado.

Harrelson-Stephens, Julie, and Rhonda L. Callaway. 2003. “Does Trade Openness Promote SecurityRights in Developing Countries? Examining the Liberal Perspective.” International Interactions29, pp. 143–158.

Henderson, Conway 1991. “Conditions Affecting the Use of Political Repression.” Journal of ConflictResolution 35, pp. 120–142.

Henderson, Conway 1993. “Population Pressures and Political Repression.” Social Science Quarterly74, pp. 322–333.

Howard, Rhoda 1983. “The Full-Belly Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority Over Civiland Political Rights? Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa.” Human Rights Quarterly 5, pp. 467–490.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Toward a Theory of Terrorism 701

Human Rights Watch (A Helsinki Watch Report). 1991. Human Rights in Northern Ireland. NewYork: Human Rights Watch.

Knox, Colin 2000. Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel, and South Africa: Transition,Transformation and Reconciliation. Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kostick, Conor 1996. Revolution in Ireland: Popular Militancy 1917 to 1923. Chicago: Pluto Press.Laqueur, Walter 1999. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. New York:

Oxford University Press.Laqueur, Walter 2001. A History of Terrorism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Livingstone, Stephen 2001. “Human Rights in Northern Ireland: In from the Margins?,” in Towards

a Culture of Human Rights in Ireland, edited by Bacik, Ivana, and Stephen Livingstone, Cork,Ireland: Cork University Press, pp. 47–92.

Lopez, George A., and Michael Stohl. 1992. “Problems of Concept and Measurement in theStudy of Human Rights,” in Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight,edited by Thomas B. Jabine, and Richard P. Claude, Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

McCormick, James M., and Neil Mitchell. 1997. “Human Rights Violations, Umbrella Concepts, andEmpirical Analysis.” World Politics 49, pp. 510–525.

McCourt, Frank 1996. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Scribner.McGuffin, John. 1973. “Internment,” available at (http://www.irishresistancebooks.com/internment/

intern1.htm).Millet, Kate 1994. The Politics of Cruelty. Essay on the Literature of Political Imprisonment. New

York: W. W. Norton and Company.Milner, Wesley 1998. Ph.D. Dissertation. “Progress or Decline? International Political Economy and

Human Rights” Denton: University of North Texas.Mitchell, Neil J., and James M. McCormick. 1988. “Economic and Political Explanations of Human

Rights Violations.” World Politics 40, pp. 476–498.Moon, Bruce 1991. The Political Economy of Basic Human Needs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Morris, Morris David. 1979. Measuring the Condition of the World’s Poor:The Physical Quality of

Life Index. New York: Pergamon.Morris, Morris David 1996. Measuring the Condition of the World’s Poor: The Physical Quality of

Life Index, 1960–1990. Providence, RI: Thomas J. Watson, Jr. Institute for International StudiesWorking Paper (#23/24).

Nassar, Jamal R. 2005. Globalization and Terrorism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.O’Brien, Brendan 1999. The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Fein . 2nd Edition edn. New York: Syracuse

University Press.O’Brien, Sean P. 1998. “Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism.” Journal of Conflict

Resolution 40, pp. 320–335.Park, Hans S. 1987. “Correlates of Human Rights: Global Tendencies.” Human Rights Quarterly 9,

pp. 405–413.Poe, Steven C., and C. Neal Tate. 1994. “Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the

1980s: A Global Analysis.” American Political Science Review 88, pp. 853–872.Poe, Steven C., C. Neal Tate, and Linda Keith. 1999. “Repression of the Human Right to

Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976–1993.”International Studies Quarterly 43, pp. 291–313.

Ross, Jeffrey Ian 1993. “Structural Causes of Oppositional Political Terrorism: Towards a CausalModel.” Journal of Peace Research 30, pp. 3317–329.

Rubenstein, Richard E. 1974. Alchemists of Revolution: Terrorism in the Modern World. New York:Basic Books, Inc.

Schultz, Richard. 1990. “Conceptualizing Political Terrorism,” in International Terrorism, edited byCharles Kegley, New York: St. Martin’s.

Sederberg, Peter C. 1994. Fires Within: Political Violence and Revolutionary Change. New York:HarperCollins College Publishers.

Sinn Fein Online. Available at (http://sinnfein.org/).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

702 R. Callaway and J. Harrelson-Stephens

Stevenson, Jonathan. 1996. We Wrecked the Place:Contemplating an End to the Northern IrishTroubles. New York: The Free Press.

Stohl, Michael and George Lopez. 1987. Redemocratization and Liberalization in Latin America.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Turk, Austin T. 1982. “Social Dynamics of Terrorism.” Annals AAPSS 463, pp. 119–128.United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.United Nations. Human Development Index. In Human Development Reports. http://hdr.undp.org/

reports/global/2005Weinberg, Leonard. 1991. “Turning to Terror: The Conditions under which Political Parties turn to

Terrorist Activities,” Comparative Politics. 23, pp. 423–438.Whitaker, David J. 2003. The Terrorism Reader. New York: Routledge.Whyte, John. 1983. “How much discrimination was there under the Unionist regime, 1921–1968?” in

Contemporary Irish Studies, edited by T. Gallagher and J. O’Connell. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, pp. 1–34.

Wilkinson, Paul. 2001. “Current and future trends in domestic and international terrorism:Implications for democratic government and the international community.” Strategic Reviewfor Southern Africa 23, pp. 106–123.

Wilson, Andrew J. 1995. Irish America and the Ulster Conflict 1968–1995. Washington DC: TheCatholic University of America Press.

Wolpin, Miles. 1986. “State Terrorism and Repression in the Third World: Parameters and Prospects,”in Government Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research, edited by Michael Stohl, andGeorge A. Lopez., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Zinnes, Dina A. 1976. “The Problem of Cumulation,” in Search of Global Patterns, edited by James N.Rosenau, New York: Free Press, pp. 161–166.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 05:

21 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014