Search results

This paper aims to address the limitations of classical deterrence theory in dealing with violent non-state actors (VNSAs).

The study uses qualitative methods.

It suggests that two measures must be applied; the first one is to rephrase the assumptions of the theory towards a broader definition. The second one is to theorize certain approaches for deterring VNSAs which shall remain a key component in, but not the cornerstone of, national security strategies.

In the aftermath of 9/11 attacks and US war on terrorism, the need arose to “revisit” the “Deterrence Theory” to address several changes such as rogue states, cyber threats and VNSAs, especially after the end of the Cold War, when the theory was originally developed. The recent research on VNSAs relates to the fourth wave of deterrence, which highlights its proper role in a new security environment.

Intractable conflicts are characterized as protracted, irreconcilable, violent, of zero‐sum nature, total, and central. They are demanding, stressful, exhausting, and costly both in human and material terms. Societies involved in this type of conflict develop appropriate psychological conditions which enable them to cope successfully with the conflictual situation. The present paper proposes the following societal beliefs which are conducive to the development of these psychological conditions: beliefs about the justness of one's own goals, beliefs about security, beliefs of delegitimizing the opponent, beliefs of positive self‐image, beliefs about patriotism, beliefs about unity and beliefs about peace. These beliefs constitute a kind of ideology which supports the continuation of the conflict. The paper analyzes as an example one such intractable conflict, namely the one between Israel and Arabs, concentrating on the Israeli society. Specifically, it demonstrates the reflection of the discussed societal beliefs in the Israeli school textbooks. Finally, implications of the presented framework for peaceful conflict resolution are discussed.

The deal on civil nuclear cooperation between India and the United States had an immense global implication on account of its centrality to the contemporary concerns on nuclear proliferation. Much of the debate centered around four critical arguments: first, by amending US nonproliferation laws for India as an exception outside the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) framework, the deal would weaken the fundamental goal of US nonproliferation policy – to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the five recognized nuclear weapon states (NWS) under the NPT. Second, why should other states stay in the treaty regime if a nonmember gets the benefits without much of responsibilities? Third, the problems of nuclear proliferation would multiply in the face of current challenges posed by North Korea and Iran. Lastly, the nonproliferation lobbyists were apprehensive that the US–India cooperation could prompt other suppliers, like China, to validate their nuclear cooperation with Pakistan. In view of these arguments it is important to assess whether these arguments are merely debating points or exaggerated concerns or do they hold any strong basis for contention.

The paper aims to understand how state and non-state domestic terrorism impacts MNEs in foreign markets. Despite the burgeoning literature on terrorism within international business (IB), most research has focused on international terrorism, or terrorism generally. Consequently, there has been limited research examining how domestic or local based terrorism impacts foreign firms.

This is a conceptual paper.

Domestic terrorism is the most common form of terrorism in the world today and involves the state and non-state actors. Non-state domestic terrorism can be low intensity or high intensity. High intensity non-state-domestic terrorism typically involves regular and protracted political violence, along with inter-communal violence. This can expose MNEs to considerable operational, governance and legitimacy pressures.

The paper contributes to the gap in IB terrorism research with regards domestic or local based terrorism. Drawing on IB theory and critical terrorism research, the paper addresses the nature and impact of domestic terrorism within IB. The authors’ paper shows the operational, governance and legitimacy pressures of both state and non-state domestic terrorism for MNEs in host markets. While most IB scholars consider the threat of non-state terrorism for international firms, this study shows how domestic state terrorism benefits and constrains foreign firms.