A Conceptual Model of Territory for Non-State Violence Castan Pinos, Jaume; M
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Southern Denmark The territorial contours of terrorism A conceptual model of territory for non-state violence Castan Pinos, Jaume; M. Radil, Steven Published in: Terrorism and Political Violence DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2018.1442328 Publication date: 2020 Document version: Accepted manuscript Citation for pulished version (APA): Castan Pinos, J., & M. Radil, S. (2020). The territorial contours of terrorism: A conceptual model of territory for non-state violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(5), 1027-1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1442328 Go to publication entry in University of Southern Denmark's Research Portal Terms of use This work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply: • You may download this work for personal use only. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will investigate your claim. Please direct all enquiries to [email protected] Download date: 24. Sep. 2021 The territorial contours of terrorism: A conceptual model of territory for non-state violence Jaume Castan Pinosa and Steven M. Radilb aDepartment of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark bDepartment of Geography, University of Idaho Abstract: Our article challenges a common discourse that terrorist groups are relatively disinterested in territory by exploring emerging theories about territory and territoriality. We use these theories to introduce a new conceptual model of the importance of territory for terrorism that contrasts a group’s Sovereignty Claims over Territory (SCOT), which corresponds with the ultimate territorial aims of the group, with its Effective Control of Territory (ECOT), which relates to the ability of an organization to exert influence over a particular territory. Contrasting these dimensions of territory allows us to develop several archetypes of territorially-motivated terrorism. Our model predicts that, in contrast to common deterritorial discourses, truly non- territorial terrorism is likely to be quite rare as most groups engaged in violence have territorial ambitions in one way or another. We then use our model to interrogate the salience of territory to three representative cases: the Islamic State, ETA, and FARC-EP. Our analysis shows that territory remains a central motivating factor for these groups as their overall territorial aims tend to remain constant whereas their ability to control territory is more susceptible to change. We conclude by discussing the implications of our model and analysis for future research. Keywords: Terrorism, Territory and territoriality, Non-territorial terrorism, Territorial theory, Conceptual model This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Terrorism and Political Violence, available online at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2018.1442328. 1 Introduction Territory and its set of associated concepts (particularly territoriality, sovereignty, and borders) is a salient and ever-expanding theoretical lens for the study of political violence.1 And yet, territory remains an underdeveloped concern in the terrorism literature which has often argued that territory is neither an end nor a means for many violent non-state actors.2 Contemporary terrorism, it has been repeatedly claimed, is a set of territorially-disinterested actors operating through various territorially-diffused and decentralized transnational networks around the world. Much of this argument about the ‘deterritorial’ nature of terrorism has focused on the example of Al Qaeda and its modus operandi. For example, Newman argues that Al Qaeda’s constituency is not “geographically bound … in any physically defined territory”3 while Hehir claims that the “threat which Al Qaeda poses to the West is not one which is … clearly territorially-bounded.”4 According to these arguments, Al Qaeda is neither dependent on nor constrained by territory and thus represents a novel case that puts into question the importance of territory for all terrorist organizations.5 In such arguments, territorially-minded actors are therefore reflective of ‘old terrorism’ and territory itself has begun to vanish from the picture. This deterritorialized perspective likely owes something in part to the difficulties in conceptualizing terrorism as separate from warfare between territorially defined states who themselves have historically competed over access to and control over particular spaces. Since terrorist groups weren’t states that could claim territorially-defined sovereignty, terrorism has been seen as something distinct from “conventional war” and its long-standing concern for territorial control.6 Of course, the study of war has since opened up considerably to include actors other than states.7 Not coincidentally, investigations about territory and conflict have also flourished by challenging the concept’s taken-for-granted strong association with the state.8 2 However, continuing to deemphasize territory in the terrorism literature is a missed opportunity that overlooks the essential yet variegated territorial character of terrorist groups, even for so- called ‘new’ groups like Al Qaeda. We seek to address this issue by building on recent scholarship about territory in order to examine terrorist groups as important territorial actors in their own right9 and to further develop a general theory of the territorial aims and strategies of such groups. We begin by considering the recent scholarship about territory and contrast it with the dominant discourses about territory within the terrorism literature. We then introduce a new conceptual framework to address territory for terrorist groups by considering the differences between their territorial claims or ambitions and their effective control over territory. We use this framework to develop several territorial archetypes of terrorist groups and then illustrate the utility of our approach through three different cases that encompass these archetypes. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of new directions in the terrorism literature made possible by rethinking territory. Territory and territoriality Territory and territoriality are often presented together as core concerns for political scholarship for the reasons identified by Ruggie; if “politics is about rule,” then it also necessarily about “comprising legitimate dominion over a spatial extension.”10 In other words, politics is about territory. Territory in this sense refers most simply to the notion of a politically ordered geographic space, or a “portion of geographic space under the jurisdiction of certain people.”11 Although closely associated with the politics of states, the concept of territory has also been widely explored and broadened in the International Relations and Political Geography 3 literatures. For example, Ruggie argued that the spatial dimensions of politics “need not assume the form of territorial states”12 while John Agnew’s well-known critique punctured the assumption that states are natural geographic “containers” of modern political society and identity, a type of thinking that he labelled as the “territorial trap.”13 These and similar critiques gave rise to explorations of other territorial political activities and spatial orderings that continue to challenge the geography of modern states, such as the global networks that span state spaces and boundaries in order to circulate people, capital, and information, the emergence of trans-state political arrangements like the European Union, and the various regional, ethnic, or cultural attachments that challenge state-centric allegiances. These critiques largely emphasized the need to question the ontological primacy of the state for political theory through an exploration of territoriality, which generally refers to the ways in which territory is socially constructed and the various actions and activities associated with the attempts “to enforce control over a geographic area.”14 Of course, the territoriality of modern states has been a major point of emphasis of this literature, describing the sundry ways in which the state impresses itself into daily life within its own territory15 and, in some cases, far beyond.16 Accordingly, while some have posited that the circulations associated with globalization have yielded a deterritorialized world where territory is less important,17 many others now point to the ability of the state (and of other political processes) to become “reterritorialized” in the face of such flows.18 From this perspective, there are few political acts or agendas that can be meaningfully described as truly deterritorial. The salience of territoriality for politics has found its clearest expression in the Political Geography literature. Building on seminar works and more recent efforts on territoriality in geography,19 Elden makes clear the inseparable distinction between politics and territoriality by 4 asserting that territory is a “political technology” that fuses the idea of political control of space with various legal and technical means used to produce such an outcome (such as cataloguing property limits).20 Even so, this position echoes Ruggie and others by rightly pointing