| Annotation |
Today, terrorism is one of the main threats to the peaceful and evolutionary development of individual states and the international community as a whole. At the same time, terrorism itself does not remain static, it is not in a state of stagnation for any long time, constantly transforming. It is obvious that its changes are influenced by some factors. Modern Russian and foreign science has devoted a lot of time to their identification, analysis and characterization. This is due to the desire to understand the internal nature of terrorism, the reasons for its transformations and prospects for development. At the same time, science does not offer an unambiguous assessment of the factors of change.
This has determined, on the one hand, the relevance of studying various aspects related to the development of terrorism, the threats associated with it, and the anti-terrorist activities of various countries and organizations. On the other hand, this problem has not been fully studied.
In the current situation of confrontation between Russia and the West, related to the annexation of Crimea, the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions and the anti-sanctions policy of the Russian Federation, it is interesting to analyse the opinions of foreign authors on the transformation of the internal nature of terrorism in the XXI century. In the past two decades, the number of terrorist organizations that are no longer held back by the borders of countries and continents has increased significantly.
The first changes in the nature of terrorism occurred as a result of the 9/11 incident (September 11, 2001), which was directed exclusively against Western intervention, i.e. interference in the internal aaffairs of other states. The activities of the Islamic state that emerged later are significantly different from those of the terrorist organizations that preceded it they are not just about resisting the West or other non-Islamic countries and regions. The aimlessness or lack of a single goal in terrorist attacks may indicate changes in the nature of terrorism. Meanwhile, there is no denying that one of the conditions for the development of terrorism, in addition to Western interference in the affairs of other countries, was the confrontation between Russia and the West in the twenty-first century, which led to a change in the existing world order |
| References |
1. Cronin A. K. Essential readings in world politics (Essential readings in world politics). New York; London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 367–381.
2. Davidson C. M. Shadow wars: The secret struggle for the Middle East (Shadow wars: The secret struggle for the Middle East). London: Oneworld Publications, 2016. 688 p.
3. Haass R. N. Foreign Policy (Foreign Policy), 1997, no. 108, pp. 112–123.
4. Haftendorn H. International Studies Quarterly (International Studies Quarterly), 1991, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 3–17.
5. Jervis R. World Politics (World Politics), 1978, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1167–1214.
6. Kennedy-Pipe C. US Foreign Policy (US Foreign Policy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 377–391.
7. Kissinger H. World order (World order). New York: Penguin Books, 2015. 432 p.
8. Rapoport D. C. Perspectives on Terrorism (Perspectives on Terrorism), 2016, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 24–32.
9. Rogers P. US Foreign Policy (US Foreign Policy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 317–350.
10. Rutland P., Dubinsky G. US Foreign Policy (US Foreign Policy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 239–258.
11. Sen A. Identity and violence: the illusion of destiny (Identity and violence: the illusion of destiny). New York; London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. 240 p.
12. Stevenson J. Foreign Policy (Foreign Policy), 1998, no. 112, pp. 41–54.
13. The history of terrorism: from Antiquity to ISIS (The history of terrorism: from Antiquity to ISIS) / eds. G. Chaliand, A. Blin. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016. 536 p.
14. Warnes R. Considering the creation of a domestic intelligence agency in the United States: lessons from the experiences of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (Considering the creation of a domestic intelligence agency in the United States: lessons from the experiences of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2009, pp. 65–91.
15. Western J., Goldstein J. S. Foreign Affairs (Foreign Affairs), 2011, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 48–59.
|
