In the first years of the twenty-first century, Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush sought to develop a strategic and economic partnership. Yet by 2007 US–Russian relations were marked by friction, and after 2012 they deteriorated into bitter enmity. This chapter argues that blaming the degeneration of relations on the KGB background, paranoia, and imperial ambitions of Putin is too simple and one-sided. It shows that the United States also spurred the decline by supporting “color revolutions” in countries around Russia, promoting NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, pushing regime change in countries such as Syria, Libya, and Venezuela, and placing missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. Although Russia and the United States cooperated on a strategic arms reduction treaty, Russian entry into the World Trade Organization, and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, conflict increasingly overshadowed such collaboration. That outcome was not inevitable. Instead, unwise policy choices led to clashes, dishonest statements eroded trust, needlessly provocative rhetoric exacerbated tensions, and media sensationalism inflamed antipathies between Americans and Russians.

Chapter 7 defends the view that Milton intended his hero as a hero, morally superior to his various interlocutors and divinely favored at the end. It examines prominent counter-arguments in recent criticism: the argument from source modification, the argument from multiple traditions, and the argument from contrast with Christ. Its final section considers the poem’s politics, and whether it is anachronistic to call Samson Agonistes a work in praise of terrorism.

This chapter examines the human rights implications of the UK’s legal response to terrorism, focusing on the ECHR. It explores the significant body of terrorism legislation that has evolved over the past three decades, considering also the legacy of The Troubles. There are myriad rights that may be impacted by terrorism legislation including the right to life, freedom from ill-treatment, right to liberty, right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to enjoy such rights free from discrimination. Having regard to the evolving nature of terrorist threats including, for instance, inceldom and right-wing extremism, and the increasing role of online modes of communication, the chapter examines the potential limitations of the existing legal framework in responding to terrorism. The chapter further explores the role of the derogation power under Article 15 ECHR in the counter-terrorism context and the potential for a progressive dilution of rights as courts are called upon to accommodate within the existing rights rubric increasingly restrictive terrorism legislation.

Are there objective criteria that we can use to discern if an act of violence constitutes terrorism, or is such labeling always a subjective and political decision? Wherein lies the boundary between domestic versus international terrori and is that a meaningful distinction to make? How do individuals get radicalized, and how do they reach the point of committing violent acts? In this chapter, we tackle these questions (and others) and the issue of terrorism in international security. There are no easy, agreed upon answers to most of them, and terrorism continues to be a highly contested and politically charged concept, while constituting a very real and pressing security threat in many countries around the world. But that is even more reason to look closely at the controversies surrounding its definition, its historical evolution and patterns, and its contemporary manifestations in the twenty-first century as well as approaches to countering terrorism and attempts at international cooperation.

By framing Kashmir as a threatened and threatening space and Indian Muslims as Pakistan sympathizers and as threats to the Indian state, the Hindu right supports an increasingly militarized nation-state and maintains the rhetoric of Muslims as the enemy within. The chapter argues that maintaining Pakistan as a perpetual enemy and Indian Muslims as supporters of Pakistan, the rhetoric of the enemy within, that is, the Indian Muslim, continues and becomes self-serving. Muslims become the perpetual other and language about Pakistan and Kashmir places Indian Muslims as outsiders and Kashmiris as an example case of what Indian Muslims could become or already are. Rhetoric and propaganda around Kashmir argues for violent treatment of any rebellion by Kashmiris and militarization of the Indian nation-state.

To discern trends in violent extremism research, we present a machine-learning analysis of over 34,000 articles published since the early 1900s. We identify two primary waves of research and, different to previous reviews, a clear diversification in studied groups, contexts, and topics. Less than 20% of articles employ methodologies that are conducive to drawing causal inferences. While more studies are using experimental and longitudinal methods, this increase is outpaced by the rise of methods that preclude the assessment of causality. Nuancing previous reviews, at the broader field level, violent extremism research is profoundly multidisciplinary, with political science, international relations, psychology, history, and law emerging as the “Big Five” contributors. At the study level, contributions from single disciplines remain the norm. While single-author contributions have rapidly declined in favor of team-based research, one-time contributing authors remain consistently high over time. To enhance future violent extremism research, we make five recommendations: (1) prioritizing methodologies that allow for causal inferences; (2) incorporating state-based violent extremism perspectives also in individual-level research; (3) increasing the utilization of big data by interdisciplinary teams; (4) increasing the focus on developmental research to understand early life influences; and (5) initiating more interdisciplinary work at the study level.

The global resurgence of violent extremism punctuated by recent acts of politically motivated violence necessitates a detailed examination of the factors that contribute to the radicalization process. Here, we argue that relative deprivation, or the perception that one’s in-group is unfairly deprived of material or symbolic goods relative to other groups, often elicits support for violent extremism. Because relative deprivation theory emphasizes perceived, rather than actual, experiences of injustice, the concept helps explain why members of both structurally disadvantaged and advantaged groups sometimes turn to violent extremism – especially when they believe that their in-group cannot redress their perceived grievances through normative mechanisms (i.e., when group efficacy is low). After demonstrating that relative deprivation can foster support for extremist violence and introducing an integrative model of group-based relative deprivation and violent extremism, we propose solutions to the growing threat of radicalization including the need to (a) reduce inequality, (b) develop productive ways for the disenfranchised to establish meaning in their life, (c) foster belongingness, and (d) build inclusive democracies that provide legal means to redress real or perceived grievances. By taking such proactive measures, practitioners and policymakers can mitigate the threat of violent extremism and make the world a safer place.

The introduction provides an overview of the book, presents the core arguments, highlights the contribution to current literature, explains the book’s methods and sources, and outlines the structure of the book. The overarching argument of the book is that intelligence cooperation was so beneficial for all parties that European authorities therefore let Mossad carry out its operation and tolerated the use of its intelligence to kill Palestinians. Hence, the book demonstrates that the extensive advantages that European agencies gained through Club de Berne intelligence-sharing led them to turn a blind eye towards, or even tacitly support, Israeli covert actions on their respective territories.

Previous research has underscored the significance of intergroup threat perceptions in fostering prejudice and hostility toward out-groups. Nevertheless, the degree to which different types of threats – symbolic, realistic, numerical, existential, and meta-threat – remains insufficiently explored. This chapter provides a theoretically informed review of the role of these diverse threat types and synthesizes recent empirical studies demonstrating that perceptions of threat can precipitate extreme forms of out-group hostility, including violent extremism. The evidence suggests that threat perceptions not only incite violent hostility across various cultural contexts but also provoke violent defensive reactions among both majority and minority groups aiming to protect their valued traditions, scarce resources, and societal status and to avoid the perceived dread of extinction. We further discuss how cultural narratives, media portrayals, and political rhetoric shape these threat perceptions, which may fuel the process of radicalization and lead to a spiral into violent extremism. Our objective is to present a detailed analysis that can lay the groundwork for devising strategies to alleviate perceived threats leading to violent extremism. Accordingly, we propose prevention and intervention strategies designed to diminish perceived threats and curtail their violent ramifications.

This chapter examines the effects that international military interventions and foreign military occupations have on violent extremism with a particular focus on how interventions and occupations foster psychological processes associated with radicalization and patterns of political violence. The chapter begins by providing definitions for the key terms and then surveys the main strands of literature on how international interventions and foreign occupations may provoke violent extremist responses. In particular, the chapter discusses evidence that military interventions and occupations enhance grievances and feelings of national humiliation among affected populations, prompting them to support political violence. International military interventions and occupations can also foster violent extremism by facilitating othering of foreigners, by worsening human rights standards, and by producing a strategic environment conducive to political violence. The chapter also examines how interventions and occupations may foster vicarious radicalization outside of the intervened-in or occupied country, thereby increasing the threat of political violence globally. The discussion of the literature is expanded to acknowledge that certain studies in the literature depict a relationship of greater complexity or nuance. It discusses some key limitations in the literature on international military interventions, foreign occupations, and violent extremism. Finally, it concludes with implications for scholars and practitioners.

Dehumanization involves the representation of social targets, often social outgroups, as falling short of the ideal human – as “lesser” beings. Not surprisingly, dehumanization has been associated with violent behaviour in theorizing, especially the notion that dehumanization leads to violence by loosening moral restraints. Here we discuss how dehumanization is assessed in the psychological literature, contrasting classic and contemporary conceptualizations. We review research not only on dehumanization as a precursor to violence, but also on how violence can be a precursor to dehumanization, and how dehumanization and violence might reciprocally reinforce one another. We briefly distinguish dehumanization of extremists from dehumanization by extremists before discussing the latest findings on meta-dehumanization (the perception that others dehumanize us) as factor in perpetuating extreme violence. Lastly, we consider implications for policymakers and intervention strategists based on this review of the empirical literature

The current chapter focuses on the relationships of stable, nonpathological individual differences to violent extremism. Traditionally, strong contextual forces have been viewed as overriding personal traits in determining group behavior generally and violent extremism specifically. This chapter challenges such conventional wisdom by emphasizing the role of individual differences. We argue and provide evidence that supports and highlights the interplay and complementary roles of individual psychology and social environments in shaping violent extremism. We review recent research exploring the relationship between violent extremism and individual psychological variables such as mental disorders, cognitive styles, motivational imbalances, group identity needs, ideological orientations, sensation-seeking behaviors, and group-based emotions, as well as the Big Five and HEXACO models of personality. We further discuss common criticisms against individual differences in approaches to violent extremism. Here, we distinguish between historical disputes, often based on researchers speaking past each other, and challenges in contemporary individual difference research. Having highlighted the significance of individual differences in violent extremism, we focus on how these insights can aid practitioners and shape policies that counteract violent extremism.

One of the rapidly emerging consequences of the climate crisis is the increase in frequency and severity of climate catalyst events, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, and wildfires. Experts increasingly recognize that these developments are likely to precipitate violent extremism; however, a comprehensive overview of this nexus remains absent to date. Against this background, this chapter presents an in-depth framework for analyzing the intersection between climatic catalyst events and violent extremism from a psychological standpoint. Initially, it explores the manner in which the climate crisis exacerbates risk factors linked to violent extremism on a global scale. These factors include heightening feelings of insignificance, diminishing opportunity costs, triggering mass migration and displacement, and provoking defensive responses in conjunction with the rise of ecofascism. Next, the chapter iterates upon the Climate Change and Violence Model, demonstrating how catalyst events can create a cyclical feedback loop of increasing violence and violence-risk factors. To illustrate the role of the psychological processes and risk factors, the chapter discusses two case studies in which climate shock events contributed to violence and extremism. Finally, potential policy solutions focused on preventing the occurrence of climate-related events and their subsequent escalation into violent extremism are proposed.