"İqtisadiyyatı güclü olan dövlət hər şeyə qadirdir". "Biz neft kapitalını insan kapitalına çevirməliyik"
Yüklə 8,12 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 368
- THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 369
- THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 370
- REFERENCES
- THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 371
|
Açar sözlər: Terrorizm, Beynəlxalq terrorizm, Terrorizmin analogiyası.
Definition of the term of “Terrorism” By going back to history, there is a “word” in Latin language - , “terrere”, which means “frighten” or “tremble.” When attached with the French suffix isme (referencing “to practice”), it becomes similar to “practicing the trembling” or “causing the frightening.” Frightening and trembling here are synonyms for panic, fear and anxiety—what we would naturally call terror. The word terror goes back over 2,100 years old. In ancient Rome, the terror “cimbricus” was a state of fear and emergency in reply to the coming of the Cimbri tribe killers in 105 BCE. This explanation of terrorism as being rooted in terror is an example of etymology. Hence, etymology studies the origin and evolution of words. By this approach, language or words are organic, variable, changing, and dependent on the needs of thinkers and speakers over place and time. [Mark Burges, p. 125] The term terrorism, in and of itself, was invented during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror (1793–1794). In the Reign of Terror, the Jacobins, a group of rebels were used the term when self-reflexively portraying their individual actions in—and explanations of—the French Revolution. The Reign of Terror was a movement of large-scale violence by the French state; among 16,000 and 40,000 people were murdered in a little over a year. Later in September 1793, the French National Convention proclaimed, “terror is the order of the day.” A frontrunner Maximilien Robespierre in the French Revolution, declared in 1794 that “terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.” In 1798, the Académie Française made addition for the dictionary, an elite French educated body on matters dealing with the French linguistic. In this addition, the term was clarified as the “système, régime de la terreur” (“government of terror”). [Edmund Burke, pp. 53-65] As it is mentioned above, terrorism has a long history and it has different definitions. The first efforts began with attempts in the 1920s and 30s and there have been countless efforts to formulate a generally acceptable definition. Definitions have been proposed in the academic literature, in national legislation and by regional and international organizations. [Tal Becker , pp. 84-85] However, actually there is no single accepted definition of terrorism.
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 368 26-27 October 2018, Baku, Azerbaijan During the years, many scholars have endeavored to define terrorism. Yet, the term is so burdened with conceptual difficulties that a totally accepted clarification of it still does not exist. However, there are list of definitions of terrorism by some of the most distinguished scholars and institutions on the matter:
Bruce Hoffman: “Terrorism is ineluctably political in aims and motives, violent—or, equally important, threatens violence, designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target, conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia), and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.” [Bruce Hoffman , p. 43]
Walter Laqueur: “Terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of violence, a method of combat, or a strategy to achieve certain targets… [I]t aims to induce a state of fear in the victim that is ruthless and does not conform to humanitarian rules… Publicity is an essential factor in the terrorist strategy.” [Walter Laquer, p. 143] Yonah Alexander: terrorism is “the use of violence against random civilian targets in order to intimidate or to create generalized pervasive fear for the purpose of achieving political goals.” [Yonah Alexander , p. 34] Stephen Sloan: the definition of terrorism has evolved over time, but it is political, religious, and ideological goals have practically never changed. [Stephen Sloan , p. 89] By UNSC acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, of resolution 1566. Operative paragraph 3 of that resolution provides as follows: . . . criminal acts, including against civilians committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act, and all other acts which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature . [UNSC , res 1566] In addition, terrorism can be defined as a type of behavior, policy, tool or instrument used by individuals, groups and nations, attests to the fact that its definition depends on the perspective from which it is viewed. Terrorism can influence the foreign policy of nations, can disrupt and perhaps destroy political processes, which are of importance to the international community, and does present a real threat to international order and stability. Furthermore, terrorism should be regarded as tactics used in political conflicts within countries and among them. Clearly, we must begin to understand terrorism in the same vein that we have attempted to understand civil violence, insurgency, revolution and, more recently, low intensity conflict. It must be subject to the same systematic scrutiny as any other type of behavior studied in the course of international politics. [Robert Salter, Michael Shtol, pp. 3-4] Moreover, according to Craig Stapley, terrorism can be classified with its four defining characteristics.
1.
Threat or use of violence
2. Using violence for a political purpose
3. Use or exploitation of fear
4. Targeting civilian noncombatants
According to the first approach, terrorism is a sub-classification of political violence. As such, the threat or use of violence is essential to an act being considered terrorism. The threat is the tool that terrorists seek to achieve their goal. On the second hand, when the violence is used for a political purpose, it can be also considered as a terrorism. In this case, terrorists could use the violence in order to change the political outcomes. In the third determination, terrorist groups seek to harness that primeval emotion in order to affect or control the actions of others—whether it is a political entity, like a government, or the general population. In addition, according to the last approach, terrorism targets civilian noncombatants. [Adam Louther, Beverly Lindsay , p. 4-19] The main intention here is to send a message to political actors. There is also another definition that terrorism means connotation of evil, indiscriminate violence or brutality [James & Brenda Lutz, p. 7]. It is not surprising that there have been a multitude of THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 369 26-27 October 2018, Baku, Azerbaijan definitions provided for terrorism. Many definitions are exceedingly complex or have far too many elements. With such complex and all-inclusive definition, terrorism could involve individuals, groups, or states; attacks could be random or selective; intimidation or propaganda could be the goal; and the goals themselves could be eccentric, political, or criminal. For the definition of terrorism, we can determine six major components: “Terrorism involves political aims and motives. It is violent or threatens violence. It is designed to generate fear in a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims of the violence. The violence is conducted by an identifiable organization. The violence involves a non-state actor or actors as either the perpetrator, the victim of the violence, or both. Finally, the acts of violence are designed to create power in situations in which power previously had been lacking”. [James & Brenda Lutz, p. 9] The first important element of this description is that the violence undertaken mainly for political reasons. In fact, terrorism has been considered exceptionally political in nature, with terrorism even being considered “the continuation of politics by other means”. Political aims are a key element that splits terrorist acts from other forms of violence. The violence is not undertaken for financial causes or because of personal problems. Kidnappings of important political leaders or corporate executives to make political declarations are different from those kidnappings that aid as criminal ventures to increase money for the abductors. While political purposes are a key for defining terrorism, the aims that are required by terrorists can fall into a numeral of categories. The terrorists may be looking for to have a government change its policies—to end a particular program from being continued or to force the acceptance of some new policy. The political aims may involve an effort to alteration leaders or the political elite, stared as corrupt or illegitimate. Goals may go more, seeking to bring about a whole change in the framework of the government - moving from a monarchy to a republic or from a powerfully centralized system to a more decentralized one or from a military despotism to a theocratic state run by religious leaders. Lastly, the terrorists may be looking for to change nationwide boundaries—to detach an area to create a new state, to assign some territory to another state, or to merge existing states into a new country. The second component of a terrorist action is that the credible danger of violence is present. Requirements for changes, petitions and demonstrations, are not terrorism, no matter how disturbing they may be to a government. Though massive protests may make a government apprehensive about the future, there is no direct danger of violence. Actual violence is obvious to detect and recognize. The threat of violence is only likely to be effective as a technique with a group that has already demonstrated that it is able and willing to be violent. A political organization that has never undertaken any type of political violence is unlikely to be credible in its threats. Once violence has been used, however, the threat of additional violence may generate the necessary fear that the dissident group desires and lead to the government giving in to the specific demands of the group, whatever those demands might be. Hoaxes can, therefore, be part of a terrorist campaign, especially when they follow upon actual earlier violent actions. Third, for violence, and even political violence, to qualify as terrorism, it must also affect a
immediate actions. Terrorism is a form of psychological war that intends to impact governments and publics. If a political forerunner is assassinated with the goal of removing that person in order to permit the next in line to move up, the demise is political violence, but it has no target audience. For a killing to be a terrorist action, it must include parties beyond the assassins and the immediate victim. On the other hand, if a political leader is killed in order to send a message to other members of the party-political elite that they need to change policies in order to avoid an alike fate, then that assassination is a terrorist act. Bombings of buildings and car bombs in crowded zones are often intended to prove to publics that they are vulnerable. The resulting anxiety may lead the public to put burden on the government to change policies or weaken public support for the leaders in authority who clearly are powerless to protect the citizens from a minor band of dissidents. If the early attacks do not generate the predictable fear, groups may find it essential to escalate the ferocity in a lengthy campaign of attacks. [James & Brenda Lutz, pp. 2-13] Therefore, it does not seem necessary to include the targeting of civilians as a key component of the definition, but it is useful to recognize that civilian populations are often the intended targets of terrorist attacks, if for no other reason than to increase the resulting fear among a target population. THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 370 26-27 October 2018, Baku, Azerbaijan Fourth, for political violence to be terrorism there must be an identifiable organization. An individual is unable to carry out the actions, reach the target audience, and present the political demands for the changes that are necessary to end the violence. An effective campaign to create change also requires enough actions to be credible, an effort beyond a single individual over time. Effective terrorism rests on the potential for repetition and the systematic use of violence. Terrorist actions almost inevitably lead to casualties or arrests among the dissidents; thus, a single individual is likely to be captured or killed too. The organization is necessary to continue the political battle. The fifth component of the definition specifies the targets and perpetrators of the violence. For purposes of the present volume, terrorism will be defined as situations in which the perpetrators either of the political violence, the victims, or both are not states or governments. Actions between states, including war, will not be included. During wartime or cold war confrontations, governments and/or their militaries may consciously seek to generate terror in the enemy’s ranks or among the civilian population. In it is last part of definition relies on the fact that the terrorist activities are used to improve the
of groups using terrorism are quite dissimilar, they all share this characteristic. They are trying to improve their power condition - to growth their probability of being able to influence political results. Terrorist operations are frequently mounted by organizations that have failed to bring about their anticipated changes by other means, i.e., they are politically frail. They have failed in democratic votes to gain enough power to bring about alteration, governments have overlooked peaceful protests and appeals, or they have been met by government repression that stops further efforts at diplomatic change. Since they are comparatively powerless in the conventional governmental setting of their private society due to limited electoral petition or limited support in the face of government suppression, they recourse to unconventional means in an effort to improve their power base. Terrorism is appealing to weaker groups because it can be undertaken with limited resources and the possible rewards are high. Groups will rationally make terrorism the technique of choice because others methods may not work or will take too long, especially when calculations of the superior resources of governments are taken into account. Groups can also use terrorism as a force multiplier - most effectively through the fear that is generated, making the use of limited resources more effective. [James & Brenda Lutz, pp. 10-13]
1.
Burgess, Mark (2003). A Brief History of Terrorism. Washington, D.C.: Center for Defense Information (CDI); Tuman, Joseph S. (2009). Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2. Burke, Edmund (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in France (Ed. C. C. O’Brien, 1969, London: Penguin Books); Shane, Scott (2010, April 3). Words as Weapons: Dropping the “Terrorism” Bomb. The New York Times, p. WK1; Tuman, Joseph S. (2003). Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 3. Becker, Tal , Terrorism and the State, Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2006 4. Hoffman, Bruce (2006). Inside Terrorism (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press 5. Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Age of Terrorism (2nd ed.). Boston: Little & Brown 6. Alexander, Yonah (1976). International Terrorism: National, Regional and Global Perspectives. New York: Praeger, p. xiv. 7. Sloan, Stephen (2006). Terrorism: The Present Threat in Context. Oxford: Berg Publishers. 8. Robert O. Slater, Michael Stohl, Current Perspectives on International Terrorism, (London: Macmillan Press, First Edition, 1988) 9.
Adam B. Lowther, Beverly Lindsay, Terrorism’s Unanswered Questions, (London: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009) 10.
James M. Lutz, Brenda J. Lutz, Global Terrorism, (New York: Routledge Press, Second Edition, 2008) 11.
Barnett, Brooke, & Reynolds, Amy (2009). Terrorism and the Press: An Uneasy Relationship. New York: Peter Lang; Hoffman, Bruce (2006). Inside terrorism (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press; Jenkins, Brian (1983). Research in Terrorism: Areas of Consensus, Areas of Ignorance. In Burr Eichelman, David A. Soskis, & William H. Reid (Eds.), Terrorism:
Graaf, Janny (1982). Violence as Communication: Insurgent Terrorism and the Western News Media. Beverly Hills: Sage. 12. Rush, George E. (2002). The Dictionary of Criminal Justice (5th ed.). Guildford, CT: McGraw-Hill
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Baku Engineering University 371 26-27 October 2018, Baku, Azerbaijan ГЛОБАЛЬНАЯ НЕСТАБИЛЬНОСТЬ И ЕЕ ВЛИЯНИЕ НА ЭНЕРГЕТИЧЕСКУЮ ПОЛИТИКУ РОССИИ И ТУРЦИИ Ирина Владимировна Зеленева Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет irina_zeleneva@mail.ru АННОТАЦИЯ Статья посвящена исследованию актуальной темы, затрагивающей российско-турецкие отноше- ния в сфере энергетики в XXI веке. Особенностью российско-турецких отношений в энергетической сфере является противоречивая ситуация, при которой, с одной стороны, Турция нуждается в постоянных пос- тавках энергоресурсов для поддержания своего экономического роста, с другой стороны, Турция опаса- ется попасть в энергетическую зависимость от России. На основе проведенного исследования были вы- явлены основные внутренние и внешние факторы, влияющие на российско-турецкие отношения в энер- гетической отрасли, сделан вывод о большом значении политических, географических, и экономических факторов влияния в определении энергетической составляющей российско-турецких отношений на сов- ременном этапе. Ключевые слова: Россия, Турция, энергетика, двустороннее сотрудничество, внешние факторы, внутренние факторы. GLOBAL INSTABILITY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ENERGY POLICY OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY ABSTRACT The article is devoted to the research of Russian-Turkish relations in the energy sphere at the present stage. The peculiarity of the Russian-Turkish relations in the energy sphere is the contradictory situation in which, on the one hand, Turkey needs constant energy supplies to maintain its economic growth, on the other hand, Turkey is afraid of getting into energy dependence on Russia and therefore sees an outlet in the diversification of energy sources entering the country. Based on the study, the author identifieded the main internal and external factors affecting Russian- Turkish relations in the energy sphere. The article concludes that at the present time political, geographic and economic factors exert a great influence on Russian-Turkish relations in the energy sector.
Yüklə 8,12 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|