Search results

Purpose – To examine how John Stuart Mill’s harm principle can guide debates surrounding definitions of radicalization, extremism, and deradicalization.

Methodology/Approach – This chapter begins by surveying definitional debates in terrorism studies according to three identified binaries: (1) cognitive versus behavioral radicalization; (2) violent extremism versus non-violent extremism; and (3) deradicalization versus disengagement. The author then interprets Mill’s harm principle and assesses which interpretation researchers and policy-makers should favor.

Findings – Applying the harm principle suggests that researchers and policy-makers should prefer behavioral over cognitive radicalization, violent over non-violent extremism, and disengagement over deradicalization. This is because government intervention in people’s lives can be justified to prevent direct risks of harm, but not to change beliefs that diverge from mainstream society.

Originality/Value – This chapter extends previous work that applied the harm principle to coercive preventive measures in counter-terrorism. It makes an original contribution by applying the principle to definitional debates surrounding radicalization and counter-radicalization. The harm principle provides researchers and policy-makers with a compass to navigate these debates. It offers an analytical method for resolving conceptual confusion.

UK government counter‐terrorism policy in the wake of the London bombings of 7 July 2005 has included an evolving set of measures seeking to engage the support of and productive interaction with UK citizens, so as to help oppose violent extremist ideology, to thwart potential sympathy for its proponents and to avert future incidents. The primary focus of such attempts has been Al‐Qaida‐influenced violent extremism. Government preventative measures have provoked controversy, especially in British Muslim communities. The article examines their reaction, from research commissioned by the Metropolitan Police Service and undertaken in London by the International School for Communities, Rights and Inclusion (ISCRI) from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), in its community engagement (CE) Pathfinder programme. The findings from this research find many parallels in recent academic literature and other commentaries. The authors contend that some government programmes have erroneously served to stigmatise UK Muslim communities ‘en masse’, which has been counter‐productive to the government objective of gaining community support and involvement, and has thereby compromised the effectiveness of counterterrorism preventative measures. The article highlights a different emphasis and some specific elements for a revised prevention policy in counter terrorism from consideration of these sources, including the primary evidence from Muslim communities themselves in the community engagement Pathfinder programme.

Purpose – The chapter explores the UK’s evolving counter-radicalization program – Prevent – and its increasing alignment with a broader Counter Extremism agenda, which it argues exemplifies not merely a concern with countering radicalization or terrorism, but a broader “civic turn” toward a narrow and restrictive conception of integration and citizenship.

Methodology/Approach – The chapter draws on a range of studies of Prevent and the governance of British Muslims, to examine the traces and impact of Prevent and Counter Extremism agendas across a range of governance domains, including urban governance, schooling, and public sector institutions and integration.

Findings – Prevent has undergone substantial conceptual and operational expansion that has meant that its purpose and efficacy as a counter terrorism strategy has become ambivalent. Its evolution into an element of a broader integration policy places limits on the terms of particularly Muslims’ citizenship. It also brings it into tension with other public sector duties and legal norms.

Originality/Value – The chapter extends existing studies of the permeation of security concerns across governance and public life, and the securitization of citizenship, to examine how these have been expressed in particular domains of governance and their implications for the inclusion and accommodation of Muslims. It also offers a caveat to the tendency in much of the literature to see such securitization as exemplifying a highly cohesive governing project.

The 2006 General Assembly adoption of the United Nations (UN) Global Counter-terrorism strategy marked the first time all member states ratified a collective counter-terrorism (CT) agenda. Building on the 2000 Millennium Development Goals, the strategy incorporated Amartya Sen's capability-based approach to development. This promised human-oriented and holistic methods for countering terrorism and violent extremism, in contrast to the post-2001 ‘hard security’ context of the United States–led Global War on Terror (GWOT). Although the first pillar of the strategy emphasised human rights and social progress over isolated economic growth, poverty, violence and retrogression in conflict zones since 2006 have led to the deaths of millions. Combined with resource scarcity and environmental devastation, insurgency-related conflicts have resulted in 70 million people displaced worldwide in 2019, while the politically violent phenomena of extreme right-wing nationalism and neo-jihadism remain prevalent. Reflecting on the social and economic outcomes of the GWOT, this chapter evaluates development-related discourses and activity in UN-led initiatives to counter and prevent violent extremism and terrorism. In doing so, it accounts for the impacts of UN CT measures on contemporary patterns ‘in phenomena described in policy arenas as ‘violent extremism’ and ‘terrorism’, including ‘neo-jihadism’ and right-wing extremism, in Global North and Global South contexts.

Purpose – This chapter examines how those who study issues related to radicalization and counter-radicalization have recently drawn from the experiences of former extremists to inform our understanding of complex issues in terrorism and extremism studies.

Approach – The authors synthesize the empirical research on radicalization and counter-radicalization that incorporates formers in the research designs. In doing so, the authors trace these research trends as they unfold throughout the life-course: (1) extremist precursors; (2) radicalization toward extremist violence; (3) leaving violent extremism; and (4) combating violent extremism.

Findings – While formers have informed our understanding of an array of issues related to radicalization and counter-radicalization, empirical research in this space is in its infancy and requires ongoing analyses.

Value – This chapter provides researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with an in-depth account of how formers have informed radicalization and counter-radicalization research in recent years as well as an overview of some of the key gaps in the empirical literature.

Purpose – UK laws surrounding the duty to prevent individuals being drawn into terrorism often focus on the need to safeguard the populace from exploitation by terrorist or extremist groups. It is within this context that countering violent extremism (CVE) work often takes place. This chapter explores how this legal duty shapes CVE projects in the UK, drawing on practitioner’s perspectives.

Methods – Writing from the perspective of practitioners from ConnectFutures, an organization that has been operating since 2013 in the UK and internationally, who advocate for a contextual safeguarding approach to provide a more holistic attitude to the prevention of violent extremism and exploitation.

Findings – Exploring the intersections between multiple forms of criminal exploitation, as well as engaging in the spaces and places young people experience harm, allows practitioners working in the CVE space to contribute to the protection of individuals from terrorist and extremist radicalization.

Originality/Value – Applying the new developed contextual safeguarding framework to CVE projects provides a contemporary and alternative ways to conduct CVE work. The chapter provides overviews of three CVE projects running with young people today in the UK, exploring how the new frameworks are adopted within these programs, all designed to address the complex causes of violent extremism.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the case of the Aspiration, Communication and Transformation campaign conducted by journalism students to counter extremism as a form of experiential learning in Lebanese higher educational context. It documents the views and experiences of students in a service learning (SL) project for redressing a timely social issue.

This study employed a descriptive case study methodology involving a portraiture naturalistic approach for data gathering. It conducted semi-structured interviews with three participating students to learn from their experiences in countering extremism. This was complemented by two interviews with the instructor in charge of the project and an external stakeholder.

Results emphasized the combination of applying the broadcast technical skills of the course to countering extremism in a volatile political context.

The findings are only a mild reflection of countering extremism through SL since it focused on a single case study involving a limited number of participants. However, the study offered common sense conclusions having broader applicability.

This topic is of particular importance to higher educational institutions and communities working on countering extremism through education, particularly in contexts rife with violence and ideological indoctrination.

This paper has social implications on promoting awareness about extremism as a challenging social debacle. It presents workable recommendations for fostering a stronger relationship between higher education institutions and communities to defy extremism. It shows the importance of connecting curricula to community needs.

This paper fills a gap in the literature pertaining to the role of higher education institutions in countering extremism through SL in Lebanon and the MENA region.