CHAPTER II. The effects of warfare and terrorism on crime 50
Brosius and Weimann’s work focused on television and newspapers, but content and form of mass-mediatization have unquestionably changed since their work has been published. This bears important implications for studies on the effects of terrorism on homicide. The contemporary third generation of Jihadi terrorism, for example, consists of elusive networks, backed up by a grand strategy with the precise aim to spread violence. As “the soft underbelly of the West”, Europe has thereby been identified as a preferable target (Kepel 2015; Lacey 2008). Indeed, as opposed to the second generation, many third generation jihadists appear to be lone wolfs—all in all amateur or “low-cost” terrorist, often with small-time criminal pasts that underwent a sort of express radicalization. This profile shares interesting similarities with other perpetrators of “highly expressive targeted violence”15, i.e. school shooters and other perpetrators of amok (cf. Bannenberg et al. 2013; Leuschner 2013), and also incorporates similarities in terms of modi operandi which may be referred to as “ceremonial violence” (Fast 2008; cited in Leuschner 2013, 30).
The strategy pursued in contemporary jihadism has been outlined by Abu Musab al-Suri in the so-called Islamic Jihad Manifesto. This strategy shares interesting cross-connections with a work that has been central to the very beginnings of modern terrorism in 19th century’s Russia, Sergey Nechayev’s Catechism of a Revolutionary. As Combs (2015, 26) describes by the example of Nechayev, both works provide interesting insights into the political and strategic foundations of movements that advocate “both the theory and practice of pervasive terror-violence”. It becomes apparent that terrorist acts, besides constituting acts of extreme violence, take the form of politically targeted discursive acts that only function on the sounding board of mass-mediatization. This may be a key aspect regarding the potential positive effects that terrorism may bear on homicide.
II.5. Research problem and research questions 51
violence. However, the conceptual divide is now blurring. Especially when dealing with violence in transitional and developing contexts, it has become fashionable to speak of new wars (Kaldor 1999, 2013; Smith 2008). This typological diffusion has put, for example, organized crime on the agenda of conflict studies. Similarly, criminologists need to keep widening their perspectives in researching homicide vis-à-vis other types of violence. This holds especially true when applying an international comparative perspective beyond the Western world. In many countries, conflict and criminal violence, or collective and interpersonal violence for that matter, are hard to distinguish. This links to the debate on areas of limited statehood (Risse 2013). It is indeed noteworthy that groups of different kinds may not only engage in collective violence. As “illicit sovereigns” (Rossi 2014), they also emerge as non-state actors that provide governance. Ernst (2015) refers to this as “criminal governance”. Also terrorists may engage in various forms of governance (cf. Osumah 2013).
For that matter, they do not employ criminal violence, but political violence as an instrument of collective violence below the threshold of war. And then, of course, there is warfare which typically marks the collapse of sovereign power which in consequence bears wide-ranging implications for the social and economic order in a given territory.
As discussed, previous research on the effects of collective violence on crime arose in a specific context that links to an issue-attention cycle (Downs 1972). This cycle corresponded largely to the occurrence of major wars with European and American involvement. As a result, criminological interest in the relationship of war and homicide peaked between the World Wars, after the Second World War, and again in light of the Vietnam War. Since then, the topic has widely disappeared from criminology, but is reemerging in the context of a transnational and global research agenda.
Conflicting criminological hypotheses on the effects of collective violence on homicide have been formulated since the beginnings of the 20th century (cf. D. Archer and Gartner 1987, 924).
Based on the empirical establishment of a positive link, the ‘legitimation of violence’/’legitimation-habituation’ hypothesis (D. Archer and Gartner 1976; Landau and Pfeffermann 1988; Landau 2003; Mullins and Young 2010) has evolved as the most salient framework. Nonetheless, similar concepts have evolved, in other disciplines—notably in anthropology and conflict studies (cf. Ember and Ember 1994; Apter and Arthur 1997; Cohen 1998), or in the form of the concept of culture of violence in political science (Steenkamp 2005). Yet, as for criminology, the absence of nation-wars with major Western involvement has left theories at an outdated level. Perceptions of war-making have changed dramatically
CHAPTER II. The effects of warfare and terrorism on crime 52
and moved away from their focus on nation-wars, while the links between terrorism and homicide have never been rigorously addressed outside the context of Israel to begin with.
Since then, criminological theory and methods, e.g. in the field of terrorism and homicide studies, have evolved. This stresses important concerns about the present validity of previous findings on the relationship between collective violence and homicide.
In response to the research problem, the present study seeks to answer the following questions by means of econometric panel analysis: Are varying instances of collective violence, i.e.
warfare, terrorism and other forms of major violence, positively associated with criminal violence? – And if so, how can this be explained? In answering the research question, the following shall be achieved:
• Generating empirical findings on the links between different forms of collective violence and homicide that are in line with contemporary methodological standards;
• Contributing to the theoretical framework on how links between collective violence and homicide can be interpreted, i.e. advancing the debate about ‘legitimation of violence’,
‘legitimation-habituation’, and cultures of violence;
• Widening the scope of contemporary criminological explanations of homicide vis-à-vis other forms of violence;
• Contributing to a global perspective in criminology;
The research question is based on the wider theoretical framework that has been outlined in the chapters above. As displayed in Figure II-1, this incorporates collective violence (warfare, terrorism, and other forms) as the explanatory factor of interest, and criminal violence as the outcome. Furthermore, a number of intervening factors, i.e. socioeconomic effects that influence both collective and criminal violence, are included. Calculations are conducted using econometric methods for panel analysis. To the extent possible, omitted variables are thereby accounted for methodologically by considering fixed group and time effects.
II.5. Research problem and research questions 53
Figure II-1 Scheme of the research question
CHAPTER III. Methods 54
Methods
Corresponding to the formulation of the main research questions, this chapter provides an overview of the methods that have been applied for the purpose of this study. This includes a presentation of the hypotheses, the definition and operationalization of key concepts, the sampling and compilation of data, as well as the strategy and techniques that were adopted in conducting the analyses.