1. Recap of the post cold war era of liberal interventionism
   1. Are the claims of a "new world order" overblown?
   2. Sovereignty vs humanitarian intervention an ongoing issue
   3. Even so, solidarist understandings of international society quite influential among policy makers
      1. States are not just atomistic toward each other. Nrms are developed for universal humanitarian intervention. A "society" of nations.
2. What is terrorism
   1. 9/11 seen as a "new threat" to a liberal world order. A whole new direction in IR studies.
   2. Us department of defence says "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, legions or ideological"
      1. But other definitions have different nuances. Eg UN, UK terrorism act etc
   3. So it's an act, of warfare, not a goal in and of itself.
   4. Emerges in situations of "asymmetric warfare" where the two parties a not evenly matched. Like guerrilla warfare.
   5. Seeing beyond our "current" understanding. The historiography of the term.
      1. Is it really just about non-state actors?
         1. Originally used to talk about state repression - le terroir of Robbespierre. But also things like Khmer Rouge etc
         2. This changed around the 1960s to refer solely to non state actors. It's a newspeak term.
3. The global war on terror
   1. The bush doctrine
      1. The response to 9/11: protect liberal democratic domestic and world orders from "terrorism"
      2. This produced a conflation of a number of different threats (rogue states, WMDs, terrorism, nuclear proliferation)
      3. Doctrine of pre-emotive warfare.
         1. US national security strategy 2002 said there was a changed strategic context of rogue states willing to take risks and gamble with the lives of their people's and the wealth of their nations. Nothing to lose states?
         2. Neconservatism
            1. "offensive realism" reinterpreted by the neocons as establishing US hegemony to fight terrorism.
            2. Also drawing on liberal ideas - democratic peace theory.
            3. Ie If US spades liberal democracy in its owin image the world will be a more peaceful place.
   2. Criticisms of the Bush doctrine
      1. Bush doctrine came under criticism even by the realists themselves, like Mearsheimer
      2. Thes also a liberal critique - that "soft power" is more effective. Spading your values around the world peacefully is more effective than military power. Hearts and minds.
      3. Then there's the "critical" response of people like Chomsky - about US sponsored terrorism.
         1. Not a defence of terrorism, but a criticism of the state's role in terror.
   3. Obama and "smart power"
      1. New national security strategy: listen with spect and not dictate to others. Nt instil fear in other countries but speak to their hopes
      2. Smart power - both hard and soft forms of power. See Obamas Cairo speech. Pragmatism above ideology. Combining realism and idealism.
   4. Terrorism and globalisation
      1. Post-Westphalian. Terrorist networks are stateless and transnational (hyper globalist view)
      2. But the response has often been state centred (eg axis of evil attack on particular countries)
4. Theorising the global war on terror
   1. Clash of civilisations
      1. A much maligned argument that in the post cold war context the major fault lines will be between broader civilisations rather than nations.
   2. Nye: global war on terror represents a "civil war" within the Islamic world, between extremists and moderates. Best addressed through soft power, not warfare.
   3. Or maybe a new post-Westphalian form of insecurity (Cerny). States only part of the scene, with webs of influence below and above state level.
   4. Neoconservatives versus realists was an influential debate in terms of policy
5. Conclusions
   1. Global war on terror is seen as a defining feature of current international system. Lots of interest in academic and commentariat circles
   2. What is the relationship to globalisation?
   3. Does it serve to masks wider socioeconomic issues. Caplan's argument that poverty ect is a breeding ground for extremism.
      1. The world system is very unequal. My thesis that communications has enabled global terror by making poorest aware of their plight relative to the rest of the world.