Abstract
Terrorist violence and violent justice responses have much in common. While contextually dependant, both forms of violence lay claim to contestred legitimacies. The relationships between terrorism and justice responses require both theoretical and empirical examination if the prospects for controlling the violence they perpetrate is to be sharpened.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Braithwaite, J. (2005). Pre-empting terrorism. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17(1), 96.
Discussed more generally in Findlay, M. (2006). Governing through globalised crime (unpublished conference paper).
The limits of the paper do not allow for a fully developed critique of contested legitimacies, as these exist in both justice and terror contexts. Suffice to say that misunderstandings about the relativity of justice, and the crude de-legitimisation of terrorism underlie much of the political discourse around the war on terror.
For instance see Thompson, E.P. (1975). Whigs and hunters; the origins of the Black Acts. Harmondsworth: Peregrine; Hay, D., Linebaugh, P., & Thompson, E.P (1975). Albion’s fatal tree. London: Allen and Lane.
For a critical discussion of this see Braithwaite, J., & Pettit, P. (1990). Not just deserts: A republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford: Clarendon.
Some exceptions to this are represented by Silke, A. (2003). Retaliating against terrorism. In A Silke (Ed.), Terrorists, victims and society: Psychological perspectives on terrorism and its consequences. Chichester: Wiley; 93; Silke, A. (2003). Fire of Iolaus: The role of state counter-measures in causing terrorism and what needs to be done. In T. Bjorgo (Ed.), Root causes of terrorism: Proceedings from an international expert meeting in Oslo. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs; 179.
An example is Heffelfinger, C. (2005). Unmasking terror: A global review of terrorist activities. Washington: Jamestown Foundation.
We are not suggesting that theorising on either component of the relationship is absent. The work of Crenshaw, M. ((1994) (Ed.), Terrorism in context.Pittsburgh: Penn State Press), Mc Cauley, C. ((1991) (Ed.), Terrorist research and public policy. London: Frank Cass) and Silke ((2004) The road less travelled: Trends in terrorism research. In A. Silke (Ed.), Research on terrorism: Trends, achievements and failures. London: Frank Cass; 186) presents supportive arguments for analysis. What they do not fully achieve is a detailed interrogation of the connections between terror and justice responses in the broadest sense.
For a charting of the post 9/11 ‘war on terror’ see International Peace Research Institute Oslo (2006) Report from the Conference ‘9/11 Five years After: Values, Risk and Identity in the War on Terror’ Oslo: PRIO.
See Rotman, E. (2000–2001). The globalisation of criminal violence. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 10(1), 1–43.
As discussed by Braithwaite, J. (2005). Pre-empting terrorism. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17(1), 96–114.
See, Tamanaha, B. (1997). Realistic socio-legal theory : Pragmatism and a social theory of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
This is critically interrogated in Findlay, M., & Henham, R. (2005). Transforming International Criminal Justice: Retributive and restorative justice in the trial process. Cullompton: Willan.
Henham, R., & Mannozzi, G. (2003). Victim participation and sentencing in England and Italy: A legal and policy analysis. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 11, 278.
See Butler, P. (2003). Foreword: Terrorism and utilitarianism: Lessons from and for the criminal law. Journal of Criminal law and Criminology, 93(1), 1–22.
For a discussion of the issue of legitimacy in general see Crenshaw, M. (1983). Terrorism, legitimacy and power. Middletown: Wesleyan.
Gross, E. (2002–2003). Trying terrorists – Justification for differing trial rules: The balance between security considerations and human rights. Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 13(1), 1–97.
See Gaita, R. (2001). Terror and justice. In P. Craven (Ed.), The best Australian essays 2001 (pp.19–36). Melbourne: Black Inc.
There is a need here for a more detailed consideration of Weber’s conditions for the authority of the state.
See Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime shame and re-integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moral standing as a legal/constitutional claim to legitimate voice is discussed in Winter, S. (1988). The metaphor of standing and the problem of self governance. Stanford Law Review, 40, 1371.
For a discussion off these see West, R. (1999). Taking moral argument seriously. Chicago Kent Law Review, 74(/2), 499–562.
For a discussion of the detail of these changes in US criminal justice and their impact on due process see, Gross, E. (2002). Trying terrorists – justification for differing trial rules: The balance between security considerations and human rights. Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 13(1), 1–98.
Quoted in Ferencz, B. (2003). The International Criminal Court: The first year and future prospects. American Society of International Law Proceedings, 97, 259.
For a deeper discussion of this read Findlay & Henham (2005).
Narvenson, J. (2001). Terrorism and morality. In R. Frey & C. Morris (Eds.), Violence, terrorism and justice (pp.116 at 124–125). Cambridge: CUP.
For a discussion of separatist states and their application of violence to early state-formation see Reno, W. (2006). Redefining statehood in the global periphery (unpublished conference paper).
For a discussion of both concepts see Tunander, O. (1997). Geo-politics in post wall Europe: Security, territory and identity. London: Sage.
Up until now I have been connecting justice and violence in a fairly casual and erratic fashion. It is useful to recall particular forms of punishment as the legitimate inclusion of violence in justice.
For a discussion of the potentials in a ‘human security’ approach to the pressures resultant from social development (often argued as fertile ground for terrorism) see Jones, J. (2004). Human security and social development. Denver Journal of International law and Policy, 33(1), 92–103.
For a discussion of this history see McCoy, A. (2006). Invisible industry: Jueteng gambling and Philippine politics (unpublished conference paper).
The importance of victim communities as referents for terrorism is discussed in Silke, A. (2003) (Ed.), Terrorists, victims and society: Psychological perspectives on terrorism and its consequences. Chichester: Wiley.
This is well documented in Paoli, L., Rabkov, I., & Reuter, P. (2006). Heroin trafficking in Tajikistan: A case-study in the interaction of weak government and illegal markets (unpublished conference paper).
These may be both significant individuals, or referential communities.
Parachini, J. (2001). Religion isn’t sole motivation of terror. LA Times 16/9/2001: M7.
Lomasky, L. (1991). The political significance of terrorism. In R. Frey & C. Morris (Eds.), Violence, terrorism and justice (pp.86–115 at 87). Cambridge: CUP.
Lomasky (1991): pp.86–87.
Recent histories of ‘deep state’ subversion are contained in Tunander, O. (2006). Democratic state vs deep state approaching the dual state of the west (unpublished conference paper).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Findlay, M. Terrorism and relative justice. Crime Law Soc Change 47, 57–68 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9054-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9054-8