Taxonomy of the concept of counterterrorism

Abstract

This paper presents the classification and typology of policies, strategies, doctrines, approaches or models of combating terrorism. The paper indicates the ways of conceptualising by presenting taxonomies and refers to some modalities of evaluation of counterterrorism concepts (CT concepts). The methodological justification of taxonomy in research of the state model of countermeasures and/or strategic responses to terrorism is confirmed, as also is the methodological premise that - despite its ability to provide a more systematic picture of this problem area - taxonomy remains a methodological instrument of analytical description, and that a theory may originate in taxonomy only if the research reaches the system of propositions that allow the interpretation of causal relationships and scientific foresight. Models of response to terrorism are often presented via dichotomies as ‘on the level of certain states and group, at the level of various regional mechanisms for cooperation’; counterterrorism and antiterrorism; short-term and long-term response; reactive and proactive response. Contents and diverse aspects of dichotomies overlap when comparing elements that define soft and hard approach, the war model and the criminal justice model, a response that is marked as ‘retaliatory action’ and ‘prevention actions’, or ‘conciliatory’ and ‘coercive’ response. Featured dichotomies, however methodologically useful, lead to the conclusion that, when analyzing the modalities of combating terrorism, it is necessary to bear in mind the other (broader) criteria and indicators. This is the reason to develop a mixed or intermediate types of responses or design tripartite classification (which is not surprising because they often arise from a dichotomy in which members positively determined). Classifications reflect the theoretical perspective and approach to the analysis of a specific problem, and then might follow widely accepted models. Review of classifications of policies and counterterrorism strategies allows for consideration of basic premises, features and modalities of their implementation - according to priorities, areas, or considerations of ways of actions for the realisation of specific objectives - which confirms the methodological justification of classification also in this research field. Presenting classifications allows the comparison of counterterrorism concepts and provides elements for their evaluation - when the analysis includes all the elements necessary for evaluation of efficiency of operational model, and other (law, political and ethical) aspects (legality, legitimacy, morality). Insight into the current classifications and typologies (counterterrorism policies, strategies, doctrines, approaches or models) confirmed the well-known methodological premise that taxonomy - despite its ability to provide a more systematic picture of this problem area - by the theoretical scope, it remains a methodological instrument of the analytical description. A theory may originate in taxonomy only if following the naming and framing of a problem issue - and then dissecting and/or separating the aspects that need to be studied - research reaches the system of propositions that allow the interpretation of causal relationships and hence enable the forecasting for thoughtful relation toward the reality and adequate action. In this sense, classifications of the counterterrorism policies that are induced from systematic, empirical comparisons (like the one from EU counterterrorism study Mapping Counterterrorism: A categorization of policies and the promise of empirically-based systematic comparisons) are of special value.