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

Ilbiz, Ethem; Curtis, Benjamin L.

doi:10.1080/1057610x.2014.974400

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After the establishment of the U.S. FTO list, other states and institutions started their own similar lists. Scholars who analyzed six such lists describe the Unites States as a "trendsetter," exerting substantial influence on other countries' lists (Ilbiz and Curtis 2015). There is overlap across lists regarding which groups are included, although the U.S. list is more global, while other countries' lists are more regional (Freedman 2010).…”

Section: Terrorist Group Designation and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, international cooperation, and terrorism

Phillips

2018

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does branding militant groups as "foreign terrorist organizations" affect them? Beyond its obvious policy importance, this question speaks to debates about counterterrorism, terrorism financing, and organizational dynamics of subnational violence. This article analyzes Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation, a key policy used by the U.S. government since 1997 to impose costs on foreign terrorist groups and those who might support them. Contrary to arguments that sanctions are ineffective and that terrorism is too "cheap" to be affected, it is argued that designation should weaken terrorist groups, reducing their attacks over time. However, the effect is probably conditional. FTO designation should be especially effective against groups operating in U.S.-aligned countries, given the importance of international cooperation in counterterrorism. Global quantitative analyses suggest that FTOs operating in U.S.-aligned countries carry out fewer attacks over time than other groups, taking many other factors into consideration.

show abstract

Section: Terrorist Group Designation and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, international cooperation, and terrorism

Phillips

2018

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While different countries' lists do not overlap to a large degree (Freedman 2010), being listed by one country may affect the probability of being listed by another. Ilbiz and Curtis (2015) show that the U.S. and the U.K. lists, acting as "trendsetters," influence the lists of Australia and Canada, but Russia and China are individual players who only pay attention to their own security.…”

Section: Official Designation Of Terroristsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Russia is another example. Despite being an active player in the global counterterrorism arena, Russia's official terrorist list largely reflects its self-interests and only includes groups that pose a threat to its domestic society (Ilbiz and Curtis 2015). Russia utilizes the tag of terrorists to tarnish and delegitimize separatist movements.…”

Section: Determinants Of Terrorist Designationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Determinants of Terrorist Listing

Lee

Tominaga

2023

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrorist designation has increasingly become an important counterterrorism tool used by intergovernmental organizations and state governments. This article examines the determinants of terrorist listing and argues that terrorist listing is driven by security as well as political concerns. While countries tend to designate groups that pose a greater security threat, terrorist listing can also be influenced by interstate relationships including alliance ties and state rivalry. We test these arguments using a dataset on 35 countries that currently maintain their own lists of designated terrorist organizations. Our findings show that governments are more likely to list groups that have a record of attacking their domestic interests. Domestic groups are more likely to be designated than foreign groups. Moreover, countries are more likely to designate groups that are designated by their allies, even when these groups do not pose a direct threat. Our study contributes to the literature on terrorism and more broadly international security by systematically examining the determinants of terrorist designation and explaining the heterogeneity of terrorist lists across countries.

show abstract

“…Given the significance of these powers, and – indeed – the post-9/11 glut of counter-terrorism scholarship, analysis of proscription in the UK and beyond has been surprisingly limited, especially from within security studies, international relations and political science (although see Sentas, 2010 ; Marques da Silva and Murphy, 2013 ; Ilbiz and Curtis, 2015 ). Legal scholars have, to date, led the way (e.g.…”

Section: Proscription and Its Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

‘I am somewhat puzzled’: Questions, audiences and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organizations

Jarvis

Legrand

2017

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent wave of scholarship has drawn attention to the need for further engagement with the role of ‘the audience’ in securitization ‘games’. This article contributes to this discussion both theoretically and empirically by exploring the types of question an audience may ask of a securitizing actor before a securitizing act meets with success or failure. To do this, it offers a discursive analysis of all 27 UK parliamentary debates on the extension of proscription powers to additional terrorist organizations between 2002 and 2014. We argue first that these debates are characterized by a wide range of questions relating to the timing, criteria, mechanics, consequences and exclusions of proscription; and second, that these questions function as demands upon the executive to variously justify, explain, clarify, elaborate and defend decisions to extend the UK’s list of designated groups. Taking these questions seriously, we suggest, therefore allows insight into a variety of ways in which audiences might participate in security politics that are not adequately captured by notions of consent or resistance, or success or failure. This has empirical and theoretical value for understanding proscription, parliamentary discourse and securitization alike.

show abstract

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, international cooperation, and terrorism

Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, international cooperation, and terrorism

The Determinants of Terrorist Listing

‘I am somewhat puzzled’: Questions, audiences and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About