Security in the 21st century: US and European responses to global terrorism

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Risks and Strategies in the Post-Cold War Era

1.1 Post-Cold War Security

1.2 The ‘War Fighting’ Approach

1.3 The ‘Crime Fighting’ Approach

2. The US Response – An Outward Oriented Approach?

2.1 The National Security Strategy of the United States

2.2 Donald Rumsfeld’s Defence Vision

2.3 Homeland Security

3. The European Response – An Inward Oriented Approach?

3.1 Justice and Home Affairs

3.2 Exporting the European Experience

3.3 Diplomacy and Development

4. War Fighting or Crime Fighting or Another Way?

4.1 Reasons for the Differences

4.2 Effectiveness

4.3 Alternatives

Objectives and Research Themes

This dissertation examines the diverging counterterrorism strategies adopted by the United States and European nations in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these distinct approaches and investigate how structural differences, geopolitical positioning, and ideological paradigms influence the formulation of national security policies.

• Comparative analysis of US "war fighting" versus European "crime fighting" strategies.
• The impact of the post-Cold War security agenda on international relations.
• The role of military capabilities versus normative "soft power" in combating global terrorism.
• Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of pre-emptive military action versus diplomatic and developmental measures.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

Introduction: This chapter outlines the shift in global security post-9/11 and introduces the central research question comparing US and European counterterrorism strategies.

1. Risks and Strategies in the Post-Cold War Era: This section discusses how the post-Cold War security environment evolved and identifies the two competing paradigms of "war fighting" and "crime fighting".

2. The US Response – An Outward Oriented Approach?: This chapter analyzes the US National Security Strategy, the "revolution in military affairs," and the prioritization of pre-emptive, outward-oriented military force.

3. The European Response – An Inward Oriented Approach?: This chapter explores the European focus on judicial cooperation, the "crime fighting" model, and the use of diplomatic and developmental "soft power".

4. War Fighting or Crime Fighting or Another Way?: This section synthesizes the analysis to explain the reasons for these strategic divergences and evaluates the potential effectiveness and alternatives to both approaches.

Keywords

Global Terrorism, Post-Cold War Security, War Fighting, Crime Fighting, Counterterrorism Strategy, US Foreign Policy, European Union, National Security, Pre-emptive Military Action, Soft Power, International Cooperation, Global Disorder, Homeland Security, Hobbesian World View, Kantian Perpetual Peace.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core focus of this dissertation?

The dissertation investigates the different ways in which the United States and Europe have responded to the threat of global terrorism since the September 11 attacks.

What are the primary strategic models analyzed in this work?

The work distinguishes between the US "war fighting" approach, which emphasizes military force and pre-emption, and the European "crime fighting" approach, which prioritizes law enforcement, international cooperation, and diplomacy.

What is the ultimate goal of the author's research?

The goal is to determine why these two major powers have adopted such different strategies and to evaluate which approach might be more effective in addressing the root causes of global terrorism.

Which academic lens is used to differentiate the strategies?

The author utilizes international relations theory, contrasting the "Hobbesian" realist worldview (associated with the US focus on military dominance) with the "Kantian" postmodern worldview (associated with the European focus on norms and interdependence).

Does the author conclude that one strategy is definitively better?

The author argues that neither approach is ideal; both have significant shortcomings in terms of measurable success, though the European strategy is viewed as more sustainable in the long term.

What role do "rogue states" play in the US strategy?

The US strategy links terrorism and "rogue states" to justify a new doctrine of pre-emptive military action, which the author argues may undermine international law and global stability.

How does the author view the US response to the 9/11 attacks in the context of international law?

The author expresses concern that the US tendency towards unilateralism and pre-emption threatens the established fabric of international institutions and the UN Charter.

Can "fortress Europe" be considered an effective anti-terrorism strategy?

The author suggests that while Europe addresses underlying causes like poverty, its reliance on tighter border controls ("fortress Europe") limits individual liberties without necessarily eradicating the source of the terrorist threat.