State agency in the time of the global war on terror: India and the counter-terrorism regime

Abstract

The evolving international counter-terrorism regime obliges and permits countries to make changes in their domestic and foreign policies. At the same time, policy-makers in national capitals respond creatively to the global regime. By examining India's response to the evolving international regime on terrorism, I will demonstrate the mechanism through which the regime is influencing Indian policy: by setting up an identity that the country can aspire to. Further, by highlighting the leveraging of regime norms by the Indian state to further its own projects, I will show that states are not restricted to either passively receiving and complying with international norms on the one hand, or rejecting them on the other. current research projects deal with the adoption and adaptation of deterrence theory in South Asia, and the effects of immigration on national identity and security.The evolving international counter-terrorism regime obliges and permits countries to make changes in their domestic policies. The regime also requires them to cooperate with other states, thereby influencing foreign policies. At the same time, policy-makers in national capitals respond creatively to the global regime. For example, while India's policies on terrorism are structured by regime norms, the country seeks to seize an influential position at this formative moment in the evolution of the counter-terrorism regime. Indian policy-makers leverage the normative bases of the regime in order to advance their preferred policies at home and abroad. India's selective adoption and strategic interpretation of the regime's norms will ultimately influence not only the direction of the international regime but also the country's own identity.By examining India's response to the evolving international regime on terrorism, I will demonstrate the mechanism through which the regime is influencing Indian policy: by setting up an identity that the country can aspire to. Further, by highlighting the leveraging of regime norms by the Indian state to further its own projects, I will show that states are not restricted to either passively receiving and complying with international norms on the one hand, or rejecting them on the other. These arguments are based on research in the aftermath of the * This article was accepted by the RIS for publication in 2008.

Successes and Failures Borne Out of Having or Not Having Multi-Agency Laws, Policies, Doctrines, and Strategies Regarding Terror Response Coordination

“…The study adopted mixed methods and exploratory research designs. According to Streb, 18 exploratory research designs fit well where there are limited or fewer studies. It is important for obtaining background information about a given topic and is flexible as well as able to address a variety of research questions.…”

“…17 Peter Kagwanja, Counter-terrorism in the Horn of Africa: New security frontiers, old Strategies, African Security Review 15 no. 3 (2006): 72-86, DOI: 10.1080/10246029.2006.962760818 Streb, 372-373 19. John W. Creswell Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.).…”

India’s Counter-Terrorism Diplomacy at the United Nations: Progress and Problems

“…India ‘began to oppose the “freedom fighter” and “root causes” arguments, on the grounds that they are politically motivated and counterproductive. Their current position is that international legal mechanisms cannot, and should not, concern themselves with root causes’ (Sasikumar, 2010, p. 621). Unequivocally stating India’s changing position on the root cause approach, Indian Prime Minister A.…”

“…Unequivocally stating India’s changing position on the root cause approach, Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee asserted that ‘we must firmly rebuff any ideological, political or religious justification […] reject self-serving arguments seeking to classify terrorism according to its root causes and therefore justifying terrorist action somewhere while condemning it elsewhere’ (Sasikumar, 2010, p. 621). Further clarifying India’s position, Deputy Permanent Representative A. Gopinathan argued that ‘International law did not support the argument distinguishing terrorists from freedom fighters, nor did it permit impunity for crimes against humanity.…”

Trendsetters, Trend Followers, and Individual Players: Obtaining Global Counterterror Actor Types from Proscribed Terror Lists

“…They mostly follow the decisions of Trendsetters in order to avoid contradicting the decisions of these powerful actors, and they also often echo the rhetoric of the regime created by the Trendsetters. 31 By doing so, they shield themselves from the negative consequences of opposing Trendsetters, and show that they are in solidarity with them. 32 Trend Followers mostly follow the listing trend of Trendsetters.…”