in ‘War on terror’
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.


If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This chapter aims to engage with the politico-conceptual difficulties of distinguishing between war and terrorism. It considers Mary Kaldor's distinction between 'old' and 'new' wars in an attempt to address the contraction of the distinction between war and terrorism is a mark of 'new' wars. The chapter also considers the merits of a free-standing conception of terrorism, that is, one independent of a relationship with war. It argues that terrorism and war have a shared logic; they both derive from a belief in the efficacy of violence in politics and a consequent assumption that violence can therefore justifiably be relied on. The chapter describes that the 'supreme emergency exemption' is extremely problematic. It suggests that the shared logic of war and terrorism that needs to be focused on by those who are concerned about the relationship of violence and politics.

‘War on terror’

The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2006

Editor: Chris Miller


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 25 6 0
Full Text Views 37 5 0
PDF Downloads 28 7 0