Search results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author: Chris Miller x
  • Manchester Digital Textbooks x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Abstract only
The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2006
Editor: Chris Miller

'Terror' is a diffuse notion that takes no account of local particularities and 'war on terror' is a contradiction in terms. This book is based on the lectures that were given on the subject in Oxford in 2006. Amnesty has described 'war on terror' as a war on human rights. It is also a contest of narratives: stories that the protagonists tell about themselves, about their enemies, and about what is happening now. The book considers how the recent actions of the United States have stressed and stretched two areas of international law: the right of self-defence, and the rules of international humanitarian law. State terrorism, with a bit of careful spin, can be reclassified as counter-terrorism, in other words as inherently good in the same way that terrorism is inherently bad. The book engages with the politico-conceptual difficulties of distinguishing between war and terrorism. The interface and tensions between the human rights tradition and the Islamic tradition, particularly Islamic law, is discussed. The intensification of Western repression against Islamic thinkers or activists has at times been coupled with policies that seemed designed to change the religious trajectory of society. The sexualization of torture is only one way in which the 'war on terror' has delineated who is (and who is not) human. Religion, human rights, and trauma narratives are three other mechanisms for rationalizing suffering. The book also discusses the subject of censuring reckless killing of innocent civilians by the issue of fatwas by Muslim teachers.

Abstract only
Some notes on ‘terror’
Chris Miller

'Terror' is a diffuse notion that takes no account of local particularities and 'war on terror' is a contradiction in terms. The body of doctrine and law under which terrorism is generally thought to fall is the law of war, which is twofold. Who, then, are the terrorists? The terrorists from whom everyone has most to fear are states. 'Inflicting violence on the innocent for political ends' is something that can be done most effectively with the arsenal of the state. The Israeli connections with ethnic cleansing and terrorism are made clear in its choice of leadership. Who then are the non-state terrorists? In the context of the 'War on Terror', they are the Islamist suicide bombers. There is some danger that the 'human rights culture', that fragile post-World War II achievement, will, in the wake of the 'War on Terror', be entirely discredited as the rhetoric of Western imperialism.

in ‘War on terror’