VESALIUS COLLEGE POL424M Terrorism, Counterterrorism and ... · Terrorism, Counterterrorism and (De-)Radicalisation ... responses developed by state agencies. Lecture, discussion,

1

VESALIUS COLLEGE Spring 2019

POL424M

Terrorism, Counterterrorism and (De-)Radicalisation

Number of ECTS credits: 6

Classes on Thursdays, 15:30-17:30 (Room VeCo1).

Contact Details – Professor Thomas Renard

E-mail: [email protected]

Office hours: Mondays, 11:30-12:30 (please, schedule an appointment).

Contact Details – Professor Koen Troch


Contact Details – Professor Nathalie Marcus


Course Description

This elective seeks to enhance students’ understanding of ideological, strategic, and operational

characteristics of global terrorism, radicalization as well as counter-terrorism strategies in the

21st Century. Students will define terms associated with the movement, and explore the

development, motives, tactics as well as the variety of conditions of radicalization and

terrorism, with a specific focus on Europe. The course will provide both a critical assessment

of the contributing factors behind the emergence of terrorism as well as of the methods and

policies used by national and international actor to prevent and counter terrorism. Policy

debates, statements and literature from a diversity of actors, including jihadists themselves,

will be introduced to create a comprehensive understanding of all perspectives involved in the

movement. This course places heavy emphasis on the professional writing, briefing, conduct,

and other skills needed for careers in the counter-terrorism and the security field.

mailto:[email protected]

2

Major Learning Objectives, Teaching Methods, Testing and Feed-back Questionnaire (MA GPSSS)

Course code and course name: Terrorism, Counterterrorism and (De-)Radicalisation

Instructors: Thomas Renard, Koen Troch and Nathalie Marcus

Summary:

Number of assignments used in this course: 3

Number of Feedback occasions in this course (either written or oral): 3

Number and Types of Teaching Methods: 3

Does your course require graded student oral presentations?: Yes

Major Learning Objectives

(see Categories A-F) – please

write down each required

Learning Objective

Course Learning objectives

addressing the Major

Objectives (choose the most

important ones that your

course actually addresses)

Methods used to Teach Course

Objectives

Methods (and numbers/types

of assignments) used to test

these learning objectives

Type, Timing and

Numbers of Feedback

given to Student

A.1 Major Theories & Core

Concepts of IR & their practical

application to historical and

contemporary policy issues

To learn the core theories of

terrorism/radicalisation and

counter-terrorism/radicalisation.

To learn how to apply theoretical

and conceptual tools to historical

and contemporary policy issues.

Lecture, discussion, student

presentation

Essay, presentation and final

exam

Oral feedback to the

presentation

Written feedback to the essay

Informal feedback throughout

the course during the seminar

A.4 Core actors, organizations and

players at the national, regional and

global level – both in the state-

centric and non-state actor realm-

capable of influencing major issues

of peace, security and strategy

(including the role of the individual

and transnational networks)

To learn the motivations and

methods of key terrorist groups

and individuals, as well as the

responses developed by state

agencies.


presentation


exam


presentation




A.5 Major processes, developments

& dynamics related to conflicts &

conflict resolution, from both a

To learn how terrorism emerges

and ends (or not)


presentation


exam


presentation


3




Learning Objective







Objectives




Type, Timing and

Numbers of Feedback

given to Student

historical and contemporary

perspective;



A.8 Theoretical, conceptual and

policy-oriented debates related to

the major tools, policies and

approaches related to the promotion

of peace and security and the

tackling of ‘classical’ and

‘emerging’ security threats

To learn the gap between

academia and the policy world.

To learn major academic and

policy debates.

To learn how to process complex

information through theoretical

frameworks.

Lectures will cover key concepts

and issues, and readings will

provide specific examples.


exam


presentation




A.10 Differentiate between the

Brussels (incl. EU) and the global

perspectives, and understand the

ways in which these will interact

Learn about different CT

experiences

Readings approach some non-

Western experiences, and certainly

national ones.

Essays allow students to look

beyond the ‘West’

Readings, Essay Written feedback to the essay



B.1 apply their multidisciplinary

knowledge & understanding to

concrete challenges and issues of

policy-making in the areas of global

peace, security and strategy

To apply theoretical concepts to

concrete policy issues.

Most specifically, draw from

political sciences, sociology, or

psychology (among other

disciplines) to understand

(counter-)terrorism.

Lecture, discussion of readings,

student presentation


exam Oral feedback to the

presentation




B.2 develop and apply

multidisciplinary insights to

concrete ‘real-life’ issues and tasks

individually and in a team

Apply multi-disciplinary

teachings to real CT campaigns

Discussion, student presentation Essay, presentation


presentation




4




Learning Objective







Objectives




Type, Timing and

Numbers of Feedback

given to Student

C.2 Analyze and evaluate the ethical

dimension and societal implications

of key approaches, policies and

paradigms related to global peace,

security and strategic debates and

issues

To learn how to critically assess

counter-terrorist campaigns and

methods.


presentation

Essay, presentation and final exam Oral feedback to the

presentation




D.1 Demonstrate and develop the

ability to communicate arguments,

recommendations and research

results in a confident, convincing,

precise, effective and engaging

manner in written form

To learn how to carry out

independent research.

To write clearly and effectively.

Essay. Essay


D.2. Demonstrate and develop the

ability to communicate arguments,

recommendations and research

results in a confident, convincing,

precise, effective and engaging

manner through the spoken word

and oral presentations

To learn how to make a good and

persuasive oral presentation.

To learn how to argue with

classmates, using scientific and

critical arguments.

Discussion and oral presentation Discussion and oral presentation Oral feedback to the

presentation

D.5 Demonstrate and develop the

ability to communicate complex

subject-matters to a predominantly

policy-oriented and professional

audience

To communicate more clearly

with policy-makers

Discussion in class with

practitioners

Guest lectures



E.1 Develop the ability to critically

reflect on one’s strengths and

weaknesses with a view to

continuously improve and enhance

one’s knowledge, skills and

capacities;

To critically reflect on one’s own

assumptions about (counter-

)terrorism


presentation


presentation




5




Learning Objective







Objectives




Type, Timing and

Numbers of Feedback

given to Student

E.2 Develop independence of

thought and an autonomous

approach to studying, research as

well as the acquisition and

enhancement of new knowledge and

skills in unfamiliar environments

To learn how to carry out

independent research.

To be exposed to unfamiliar

perspectives.

Discussion, student presentation,

essay


presentation




F.5 Develop and demonstrate an

attitude of open-mindedness,

academic integrity, critical and self-

critical reflection with a view to

contribute to rigorous analysis and

diverse academic debates

To differentiate between empirical

and normative statements.

To have an open-minded attitude

toward different perspectives.


presentation


presentation




6

Course Assessment: Assignments Overview The students will be evaluated on the basis of their performance in the following assignments:

➢ Student presentations 25%

➢ Final Essay 35%

➢ Final examination 40%

TOTAL 100%

Deadlines:

- Contact the instructor about the topic for the presentation/essay by 7 February.

-Presentations: 7 March.

-Final essay by 15:00 on 4 April. To be submitted on Canvas, which uses Turnitin to

detect plagiarism.

Work Load Calculation for this Course: This course counts for 6 ECTS, which translates into 150 – 180 hours for the entire semester for this course. This means that you are expected to spend roughly 10 hours per week on this course. This includes 2 hours of lectures or seminars per week and 8 hours ‘out of class’ time spent on preparatory readings, studying time for exams as well as time spent on preparing your assignments. Please see below the estimated breakdown of your work-load for this course. Time spent in class: 2 hours per week / 28 hours per semester Time allocated for course readings: 7 hours per week / 84 hours per semester Time allocated for preparing for presentation: 14 hours Time allocated for preparing for the final essay and proposal: 20 hours Time allocated preparing/revising for written Final Exam: 10 hours Total hours for this Course: 156 hours

Grading Scale of Vesalius College

Vesalius College grading policy, in line with the Flemish Educational norms, is now as stated follows:

Grade Scale of 20 Scale of 100

A 17.0-20.0 85-100

A- 16.1-16.9 81-84

B+ 15.3-16.0 77-80

B 14.5-15.2 73-76

B- 13.7-14.4 69-72

C+ 13.1-13.6 66-68

C 12.3-13.0 62-65

C- 11.5-12.2 58-61

D+ 10.7-11.4 54-57

D 10.0-10.6 50-53

F Below 10 0-49

7

Description of assessment activities, grading criteria and deadlines:

Student presentations (25%)

The oral presentation and the essay work hand-in-hand. The in-class oral assignment consists

of a 15 minutes presentation of the early findings that will guide the essay. More specifically,

the student will be expected to present one terrorist organisation, explain how it emerged/was

created, how it has evolved (in terms of ideology and methods), what was the overall profile

of the group members, and how it survived or alternatively was defeated. Students are expected

to rely on the teachings of class and existing literature. A PowerPoint presentation is expected.

The grading will be based on the substance (i.e. how well-researched is the presentation, how

well-informed and argued), as well as on the form (communication skills). Possibility will be

given for a discussion with classmates, which is also considered as part of the presentation.

The topic should be agreed with the Instuctors by 7/2 (week 3). Presentations will take place

during the same week (week 7), on 7 March. Absence to that class should be strictly justified.

Descriptor Excellent Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Oral presentation

skills

(20 points)

Very well structured;

focused and clear

presentation

Well-structured, mostly

focused presentation.

Disorganized and unclear

presentation.

Visual presentation

skills

(10 points)

Good use of visual aid

(where provided)

Appropriate visual aid

(where provided)

Visual aid is not used or

organized at best (where

provided).

Origins/causes/profile

(30 points)

The presentation

addresses various

elements that explain the

emergence of the

movement.

The presentation only

partly addresses core

causes.

Inability to explain why and

how the terrorist group

emerged.

Evolution of

tactics/methods

(30 points)

The presentation explains

clearly and

comprehensively how the

tactics of the group

evolved, and why.

The presentation explains

partly how the tactics of

the group evolved, and

why.

The presentation insufficiently

explains how the tactics of the

group evolved, and why.

Lessons

(10 points)

The presentation draws

convincing lessons for

modern CT.


partly convincing lessons

for modern CT.


insufficiently convincing

lessons for modern CT.

Total

( /100 points)

Final Essay (35%)

You will write an essay that analyses the evolution of a terrorist group and the responses that

were devised to combat it, and reflect on lessons for modern counter-terrorism. You will be

required for this to rely and use scientific literature, including but not limited to the class

readings. The topic/group will be the same as the one of the oral presentation.

Your essay is due by 15:00 on 4 April on Canvas, which uses Turnitin. A hard copy should

be submitted in class as well. When submitting to Canvas, use an informative file name,

including your surname and the issue covered (for example “Smith_Cuban Missile Crisis”).

Make sure you submit your paper in Word format (NO PDF). NOTE: Late submission

reduces the score 10 percentage points per day (if you are late for 1 minute, your

maximum point becomes 90%. It becomes 80% between 24 hours and 48 hours late, and

so on). To avoid problems with the computer or the Canvas website, you are strongly

8

encouraged to submit the paper a few days before the deadline. The essay should be

submitted in Times New Roman font, 12 points type, 1.5 spaced. It should be between 4000

and 5000 words, INCLUDING every part of the paper (e.g., the cover page, footnotes, and the

bibliography). Papers that deviate from the word range will be penalized.

Papers should be structured in 4 sections, distinguishable by clear headings and subtitles (see

the table below for more details). Please note that the title of each section is your compass to

navigate both your topic and your selected theories. Make sure that each section is coherent

and that the argument draws on and follows the selected subtitle. The paper should be structured

as follows:

Section Description and checklist

Introduction

This section sets the context of the essay and presents the core argument. This

should be done in the form of a research question/statement.

Part two –

The group

This section addresses the root causes of the terrorist group, its evolution in

time (in terms of size, popular support, strategy, tactics and methods), it

explores what made it successful or not.

Part three –

The response

This section addresses how one country responded to the terrorist

organisation, what measures where taken and whether these measures were

effective and why (not).

Conclusion

The conclusion should not only summarise the main argument of the paper,

but also draw some lessons for modern counter-terrorism campaigns, which

can be presented in the form of reflexions or recommendations.

System of bibliographic referencing

Please use APA, MLA, Chicago, or Harvard style for your referencing.

For general guidance on “Acknowledging, Paraphrasing, and Quoting Sources”, please consult

this overview developed by the writing center at University of Wisconsin-Madison and

available at: http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Acknowledging_Sources.pdf.

Please, also consult the following short guide for “Acknowledging, Paraphrasing, and Quoting

Sources”, available at: writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Acknowledging_Sources.pdf

For direct quotes, page number, when available, should be cited in the text of your work.

Harvard style of referencing - Examples:

In-text citation:

Both unities of discourses and objects are formed “by means of a group controlled decisions” (Foucault,

2011:32).

Habermas acknowledges the crucial function of language as a “medium of domination and social force”

(1974:17, in Forchtner, 2011:9).

In your reference list:

How to quote books:

Held, D. (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkley: University of

California Press.

How to quote chapters in edited books:

http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Acknowledging_Sources.pdf

9

Wæver, O. (1995), ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Ronnie, D. L. (ed.) On Security, New York:

Columbia University Press, pp. 46-86.

How to quote articles:

Foucault, M. (1982), ‘The Subject and Power’. Critical Inquiry, 8(4): 777-795.

How to quote electronic sources:

Thatcher M (1992), Europe’s Political Architecture, Speech in the Hague delivered on the 15th May

1992, available at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108296,

retrieved on 8 June, 2012.

Grading Form for the final essay (40%)

The following criteria will be applied in assessing your written work: Selection of a clearly focused

topic, a logical, well-structured and well-organized analysis; Ability to select and summarize core

theoretical tools; Critical understanding of the concepts and theories studied in the course; Ability to

proceed to a theoretically grounded analysis of the selected topic. (see below for more details).

Fail Pass Good Excellent

Introduction

Research

Question /

Statement / (10)

The research question

is irrelevant or not well

identified; the topic is

not adequately

contextualized; the

outline is absent or

flawed.

The introduction gives

sufficient information on

the research question, the

topic and the outline. A

combination of flaws

hinders the author’s

argument.

Good ability to identify a

research question and to

pose a relevant research

question. Some

redundancies. The outline

is overall good and

background information is

relevant.

Clear and concise research

question / Succinct outline

of structure of the paper

and main argument.

Analysis /

Discussion of

the terror group

(25)

The analysis shows

major pitfalls; Inability

to apply theoretical

frameworks to

empirical cases.

Information provided is

insufficient; the

analysis is superficial.

Sufficient ability to

review relevant facts for

the analysis. Core

statements are not always

supported by reference or

evidence; not all

information is relevant.

Basic critical

engagement.

Good critical analysis,

supported by good

information and data; some

flaws in the use of data and

reference in support of

one’s argument; Minor

flaws in the argumentative

line and the application of

theories.

Excellent use of evidence

and references; Clear

application of theoretical

frameworks; Critical

evaluation of core

assumptions of other

authors

Analysis /

Discussion of

the counter-

terror campaign

(25)

The analysis shows

major pitfalls; Inability

to apply theoretical

frameworks to

empirical cases.

Information provided is

insufficient; the

analysis is superficial.

Sufficient ability to

review relevant facts for

the analysis. Core

statements are not always

supported by reference or

evidence; not all

information is relevant.

Basic critical

engagement.

Good critical analysis,

supported by good

information and data; some

flaws in the use of data and

reference in support of

one’s argument; Minor

flaws in the argumentative

line and the application of

theories.

Excellent use of evidence

and references; Clear

application of theoretical

frameworks; Critical

evaluation of core

assumptions of other

authors

Structure (10) Loose structure; failure

to provide most

relevant information.

Serious mismatch

between theory and

analysis.

Some flaws in the

structure of the paper; not

all information is

relevant; mismatch

between theoretical and

analytical frameworks.

Overall, the paper is well-

structured. Some minor

flaws in the organization

hinder the strength of the

argument.

Coherent and logical

structure; clear argument,

linking theories and

empirical examples back

to answering the main

research question.

Conclusion (20) The conclusions mainly

repeat previous

sections; no critical

The conclusions show

some attempts to

critically review the main

findings

The conclusions show a

good ability to engage

critically with the topic and

assess the main findings.

Succinct summary of key

findings and answer to the

research question; Critical

and open-minded

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108296

10

evaluation or reflection

on main findings

evaluation of core

arguments and results.

Offers policy implications.

Formal Aspects

(10)

Incorrect

expression/referencing

system; Insufficient

readings (less than 5)

Some flaws in the

expression and the

referencing systems;

Sufficient number of

sources (at least 5).

Overall correct use of

language and referencing

system; adequate number

of sources (5-9 references).

Correct use of language

and referencing system;

Appropriate Number of

Sources (10 or more

references)

TOTAL

Final exam (40%)

The final exam (40%) will be held at the end of the course (location and time will be

announced once the final exam schedule is posted). Questions for the final exam can address

any topic covered in this semester. More details about the exam will be discussed in class.

Final exam grading criteria

Close-ended questions are “right or wrong” questions. Open-ended questions will be evaluated

according to the following criteria:

Fail (0-1.6) Pass (1.7 – 2.8) Good (2.9 – 3.9) Excellent (4-5)

Structure and

completeness

of the answer

The answer is

loosely structured

and fails to provide

most relevant

information.

The answer provides

only most relevant

information and it is

not structured at best.

The answer is well

structured, although with

some flaws. Information

provided is pertinent and

overall exhaustive.

The answer addresses

the question in a

structured, succinct and

analytical manner.

Expression Expression is poor

and technical

vocabulary is not

developed.

Expression is

occasionally defective.

Several imprecisions in

the use of technical

vocabulary.

Overall good capacity to

express complex

concepts and correct

language. Some minor

flaws

Excellent capacity to

express and discuss

complex concepts.

Command of technical

language.

Knowledge

and

understanding

of theoretical

frameworks

Theories are simply

mentioned. Weak

engagement with the

course material.

Severe conceptual or

theoretical

oversimplification.

Sufficient engagement

with theories; not all

information provided is

relevant or well

explained. Sufficient

understanding of

theoretical

frameworks.

Overall, theories are well

presented and reviewed.

Some minor imprecision

in the review of theories

and concepts; fairly

good critical ability to

assess theoretical

frameworks.

Excellent

understanding of

arguments and debates;

good critical

assessment of

theoretical frameworks;

good ability to compare

and contrast key

arguments.

Ability to

apply

theoretical

frameworks

The examinee fails to

apply theoretical

frameworks to

empirical cases.

Sufficient attempt to

relate theoretical

frameworks to concrete

cases altough with

some mistakes. Some

ability to critically

engage with the

theories and topics

under enquiry.

Overall, the examinee

manages to relate

theoretical and

conceptual frameworks

to concrete examples

and cases. Some

imprecisions and

mistakes.

Excellent ability to

apply theories to

concrete cases. The

answer reveals a critical

understanding of both

theoretical frameworks

and topics under

enquiry.

11

Vesalius College Attendance Policy

As the College is committed to providing students with high-quality classes and ample

opportunity for teacher-student interaction, it is imperative that students regularly attend

class. As such, Vesalius College has a strict attendance policy.

Participation in class meetings is mandatory, except in case of a medical emergency (e.g.

sickness). Students will need to provide evidence for missing class (doctor’s note). If

evidence is provided, the missed class is considered as an excused class. If no evidence is

provided immediately before or after the class, the missed class is counted as an absence.

Participation implies that students are on time: as a general rule, the College advises that

students should be punctual in this regard, but it is up to the professor to decide whether to

count late arrivals as absences, or not.

Additional Course Policies

Late paper policy

The College considers late submissions as disruptive and disrespectful practices and strongly

recommends students to work on their time management. Late papers will be assessed as

follow:

• Late submission reduces the score 10 percentage points per day (if you are late for 1

second, your maximum point becomes 90%, until 24 hours after the deadline. The

maximum point becomes 80% between 24 hours and 48 hours after the deadline, and so

on).

• Students are strongly encouraged to submit papers at least an hour before the deadline.

Problems with internet, printer, etc. will not excuse late submission.

In the event of exceptional circumstances which impede the delivery of assignments, a student

may request prior to the assigned due date an extension without penalty. Students must

accompany this request with a medical certificate or other proof of the extreme circumstance

that impeded the fulfilment of the task. In this case, the student should still submit the draft

she/he has produced so far.

Professors will examine the request and decide whether an extreme circumstance exists or does

not exist. ‘Extreme circumstances’ must be significant, unpredictable and serious. These

include medical treatment or distress for a family crisis or loss. These do not include time

management problems, technical problems with the computer, inability to find sources,

attending a wedding.

Academic Honesty

Academic dishonesty is NOT tolerated in this course. Academic honesty is not only an ethical

issue but also the foundation of scholarship. Cheating and plagiarism (including self-

plagiarism) are therefore serious breaches of academic integrity.

Following the College policy, cheating and plagiarism cases will be communicated in writing

to the Student Conduct Committee for disciplinary action. Appropriate references and citations

must be provided to any work, including your own previous writing. Grammar, spelling and

punctuation count, so use the tools necessary to correct before handing in assignments.

12

Course Schedule

*Some changes may be made to the following schedule, and I reserve the right to revise the

syllabus accordingly.

*In addition to the readings listed below, students will be sometimes required to read short

news articles. Students are not required (but are encouraged) to read the suggested readings.

PART I: Radicalisation, Terrorism and Insurgency

1) 24 January Introduction to key warfare concepts: terrorism, insurgency, revolution

2) 31 January Radicalism, radicalisation and (violent) extremism

3) 7 February Vectors of radicalisation and new trends: crime-terror nexus, prisons, internet

4) 14 February History of terrorism in Europe: anarchists, left-wing, righ-wing, separatists

5) 21 February Jihadi terrorism in Europe:

6) 28 February FTF vs Homegrown terrorism

7) 7 March Presentations

PART II: Counter-terrorism, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) and Counter-radicalisation

8) 14 March Counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency

9) 21 March Counter-radicalisation, C/PVE

10) 28 March How terrorism ends, and why terrorists quit

11) 4 April Countering terrorism today : the role of EU

12) 25 April Countering terrorism today: the role of NATO

13) 2 May Countering terrorism today: A national perspective

14) 9 May Looking ahead: future threats

15) 16 May Final exam

Readings:

*In addition to the readings listed below, students will be often required to read short news

articles. Students are not required (but are encouraged) to read the suggested readings.

General readings and others

Recommended academic journals:

Terrorism and Political Violence; Studies in Conflict and Terrorism; Journal for

Deradicalization; Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression; Perspectives on

13

Terrorism; CTC Sentinel; International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence;

Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism; International Affairs; Foreign

Affairs

Recommended podcasts:

Terrorism 360: https://www.start.umd.edu/terrorism360

Talking Terror: https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443

Caliphate (NYT): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/podcasts/caliphate-isis-rukmini-

callimachi.html

Recommended newspapers and magazines:

Financial Times; New York Times; Washington Post; Guardian; Le Monde; Mediapart; The

Economist

Week 1:

Mandatory readings:

Wilkinson, P. (2006). Terrorism vs Democracy, Chapter 1, Abingdon: Routledge. (19p.)

Schmid, A. (2004). ‘Terrorism: The definitional problem’, Case W. Res. J. Int'l L., 36:2, pp.

375-419. (45p.)

Byman, D. (2018). ‘When to Call a Terrorist a Terrorist’, Foreign Policy, October. (2p.)

Suggested Podcast:

EP 1: Defining Terrorism: A Conversation with Martha Crenshaw, Terrorism 360,

https://www.start.umd.edu/terrorism360

Recommended reading:

Jones, S. et al. (2018). ‘From the IRA to the Islamic State: The Evolving Terrorism Threat in

Europe’, Washington: CSIS, December. (50p.)

TE-SAT 2018, Europol.

Week 2:

Mandatory readings:

Lia, B. et al. (2000). ‘Why terrorism occurs - A Survey of Theories and Hypotheses on the

Causes of Terrorism’, Oslo: FFI. (30p.)

Schmid, A. (2013) ‘Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual

Discussion and Literature Review’, The Hague: ICCT, pp. 1-39. (40p.)

Sedgwick, M. (2010), ‘The Concept of Radicalization as a Source of Confusion’, Terrorism

and Political Violence, 22:4, pp. 479-494. (16p.)

Recommended readings:

Crenshaw, M. (1981). The causes of terrorism, Comparative Politics, 13:4., pp. 379-399.

Coolsaet, R. (2018), ‘Radicalisation – The origins and limits of a contested concept’ (21p.)

Neumann, P. (2013), ‘The trouble with radicalization’, International Affairs, 89: 4, pp. 873–

893.

Malthaner, S. (2017). ‘Radicalization: The Evolution of an Analytical Paradigm’, European

Journal of Sociology, 58:3, pp. 369–401.

Week 3:

Mandatory readings:


https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/podcasts/caliphate-isis-rukmini-callimachi.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/podcasts/caliphate-isis-rukmini-callimachi.html


14

Basra, R. et al. (2016). ‘Criminal Pasts, Terrorist Futures: European Jihadists and the New

Crime-Terror Nexus’, London: ICSR, pp. 7-45. (38p.)

Silke, A. et al. (2017) ‘Countering Violent Extremism in Prisons: A Review of Key Recent

Research and Critical Research Gaps’, Perspectives on Terrorism, 11:5, pp. 2-11. (8p.)

Silke, A. (2014). ‘Risk assessment of terrorist and extremist prisoners,’ in A. Silke (ed.),

Prisons, Terrorism and Extremism: Critical Issues In Management, Radicalisation and

Reform, pp.108-121. London: Routledge. (20p.)

Maleagrou-Hitchens et al. (2017) ‘Literature review: The impact of digital communications

technology on radicalization and recruitment’, International Affairs, 93:5, pp. 1233–1249.

(16p)

Suggested Podcast:

Maura Conway, Talking Terror Podcast, https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443/episode38-

conway-final


Hamm, M. (2013) The Spectacular Few: Prisoner Radicalization and the Evolving Terrorist

Threat, NYC: NYU Press.

Week 4:

Mandatory readings:

Crenshaw, M. (2007). ‘The Debate over “New” vs. “Old” Terrorism’, Prepared for

presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago,

Illinois, August 30-September 2, 2007. (34p.)

Neumann, P. (2016). Radicalized: New jihadists and the threat to the West, chapter 1,

London: IB Tauris, pp. 9-31. (22p)

Chenoweth, E. (2007). "Italy and the Red Brigades: The Success of Repentance Policy in

Counterterrorism." In Countering Terrorism in the 21st Century. Westport, CT:Greenwood

Publishing Group. (14p.)

Wright, J. (2007). “Countering West Germany's Red Army Faction: What Can We Learn?”

In Countering Terrorism in the 21st Century. Westport, CT:Greenwood Publishing Group.

(17p.)

Week 5:

Mandatory readings:





Nesser, p. (2015). Islamist terrorism in Europe: A history, chapter 1, Oxford: OUP, pp. 23-

51. (28p.)

Nesser, p. (2015). Islamist terrorism in Europe: A history, chapter 3, Oxford: OUP, pp. 67-

86. (20p.)

Suggested podcast:

EP 13: ISIS and Religiously Inspired Terrorism: A Conversation with Jessica Stern,

Terrorism 360, https://www.start.umd.edu/terrorism360

Week 6:

https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443/episode38-conway-final

https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443/episode38-conway-final


15

Mandatory readings:



de Roy van Zuijdewijn, J. (2016). ‘Terrorism and Beyond: Exploring the Fallout of the

European

Foreign Fighter Phenomenon in Syria and Iraq’, Perspectives on Terrorism, 10:6, pp. 82-96.

(14p.)

Coolsaet R. and T. Renard (2018). ‘The Homecoming of Foreign Fighters in the Netherlands,

Germany and Belgium: Policies and Challenges’, The Hague: ICCT. (4p)

Renard, T. (2017). ‘Europe’s “new” jihad: Homegrown leaderless, virtual’, Security Policy

Brief 89, Egmont Institute. (6p)

Schuurman, B. et al (2017). ‘End of the Lone Wolf: The Typology that Should Not Have

Been’,

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. (8p)

Recommended reading

Barrett, R. (2017) Beyond the Caliphate: Foreign Fighters and the Threat of Returnees,

NYC: The Soufan Center.

Renard T. and R. Coolsaet (2018). Returnees: Who are they, why are they (not) coming back

and how should we deal with them?, Brussels: Egmont Institute.

Week 8:

Mandatory readings:

Wilkinson, P. (2006). Terrorism vs Democracy, Chapters 5&6, Abingdon: Routledge, pp.

61-102. (41p.)

Crelinsten, R. (2014), ‘Perspectives on Counterterrorism: From Stovepipes to a

Comprehensive

Approach’, Perspectives on Terrorism, 8:1, pp. 2-15. (13p)

Taub, B. (2018). ‘The spy who came home’, The New Yorker, May. (32p)

Suggested Podcast:

EP 2: Getting Counterterrorism Right: A Conversation with Bruce Hoffman, Terrorism 360,


EP 11: The Ongoing Challenges of Counterterrorism: A Conversation with Brian Jenkins,

Terrorism 360, https://www.start.umd.edu/terrorism360

Week 9:

Mandatory readings:

Schmid, A. (2013) ‘Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual

Discussion and Literature Review’, The Hague: ICCT, pp. 40-60. (20p.)

Richards, A. (2010). ‘The problem with ‘radicalization’, the remit of ‘Prevent’, and the need

to refocus on terrorism in the UK’, International Affairs, 86:4. (13p)

Kundnani, A. and B. Hayes (2018). ‘The globalisation of Countering Violent Extremism

policies: Undermining human rights, instrumentalising civil society’, Amsterdam:

Transnational Institute. (38p)

Suggested Podcast:

EP 9: Pathways to Terrorism: A Conversation with Clark McCauley, Terrorism 360,


John Horgan, Talking Terror Podcast, https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443




https://soundcloud.com/user-366747443

16

Week 10

Mandatory readings:

Wilkinson, P. (2006). Terrorism vs Democracy, Chapter 12, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 192-

210. (18p.)

Cronin, A. (2006) ‘How al-Qaeda ends’, International Security, 31:1, pp. 7–48. (40p)

Miller, E. (2016) ‘Patterns of Collective Desistance from Terrorism: Fundamental

Measurement Challenges’, Perspectives on terrorism, 10:5, pp. 5-21. (13p)

Horgan, J. (2008). ‘Deradicalization or Disengagement? A Process in Need of Clarity and a

Counterterrorism Initiative in Need of Evaluation’, Perspectives on Terrorism, 2:4, pp. 2-8.

(6p)


Altier, M. B., Boyle, E.L., Shortland, N., & Horgan, J. (2017) “Why They Leave: An

Analysis of Terrorist Disengagement Events from 87 Autobiographical Accounts.” Security

Studies 26(2): 305-22.

Week 11:

Mandatory readings:

Tucek, F. and R. Warnes (2017) ‘The European Union against Terrorism: Challenges and

Future Opportunities’, in S.N. Romaniuk et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Global

Counterterrorism Policy, pp. 315-336. (20p)

Coolsaet, R. (2010), ‘EU counterterrorism strategy: value added or chimera?’, International

Affairs, 86:4, pp. 857–873. (17p)

EU Counterterrorism Strategy, Brussels, 2005. (17p)

Week 12:

Mandatory readings:

Shapiro, J. and D. Byman (2006). ‘Bridging the Transatlantic Counterterrorism Gap’, The

Washington Quarterly, 29:4, pp. 33–50. (17p)

Rees, W. and R. Aldrich (2005). ‘Contending cultures of counterterrorism: transatlantic

divergence or convergence?’, International Affairs, 81:5, pp. 905-923. (19p)

US National Strategy for Counterterrorism, Washington DC, 2018. (34p)

Week 13:

Mandatory readings:

CONTEST: The UK’s Counterterrorism Strategy (100p)

Week 14:

Mandatory readings:

Rassler, D. (2018). IS and drones, West Point: Combating Terrorism Center. (25p)

Clarke, C. (2018). ‘The Future of the Global Jihadist Movement After the Collapse of the

Caliphate’, The Hague: ICCT.

Conway, M. (2018) ‘Is Cyberterrorism a Real Threat? – Yes’, In: Jackson, Richard and

Pisoiu, Daniela, (eds.) Contemporary Debates on Terrorism (2nd edition). Routledge (Taylor

& Francis), Abingdon and New York, pp. 102-108

VESALIUS COLLEGE POL424M Terrorism, Counterterrorism and ... · Terrorism, Counterterrorism and (De-)Radicalisation ... responses developed by state agencies. Lecture, discussion,

Documents