Seen Like a State: How Illegitimacy Shapes Terrorism Designation
Seen Like a State: How Illegitimacy Shapes Terrorism Designation
复制标题
像一个国家一样看待：非法性如何塑造恐怖主义定性
DOI：
10.1093/sf/sov083
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Winston Chou
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Winston Chou
为什么只有一些暴力政治行为者被认定为恐怖分子？为了回答这个问题，我研究了美国政府对恐怖主义的正式认定。将恐怖主义定义为组织非法性的标志，我假设看起来更像国家的团体——有效的、代表性的和世俗的——更有可能被视为政治权力的合法竞争者。因此，这些团体被指定为恐怖分子的风险较低。相反，针对更合法国家的组织被指定为恐怖分子的风险更高。根据经验，我证明了几个事实来支持这些假设。首先，美国不成比例地将弱势群体和政治上不具代表性的群体列为恐怖分子。其次，它不成比例地将国家能力较强的国家中的团体标记为恐怖分子。第三，特别是近年来，它不成比例地把伊斯兰组织列为恐怖分子。
Why are only some violent political actors designated as terrorists? To answer this question, I examine formal terrorism designations made by the US government. Conceptualizing terrorism designation as a marker of organizational illegitimacy, I hypothesize that groups that appear more like a state—effective, representative, and secular—are more likely to be seen as legitimate contenders for political power. As a result, these groups have a lower risk of being designated as terrorists. Conversely, groups that target more legitimate states have a higher risk of being designated as terrorists. Empirically, I demonstrate several facts in support of these hypotheses. First, the United States has disproportionately labeled weak and politically non-representative groups as terrorists. Second, it has disproportionately labeled groups in countries with greater state capacity as terrorists. Third, especially in recent years, it has disproportionately labeled Islamist groups as terrorists.