A Genealogy of Terrorism in States’ Discourse

• Název práce v češtině: Genealogie terorismu v diskurzu států
• Název v anglickém jazyce: A Genealogy of Terrorism in States’ Discourse
• Klíčová slova: terorismus, genealogie, diskurs, Foucault, Schmitt, Společnost národů, Organizace spojených národů
• Klíčová slova anglicky: terrorism, genealogy, discourse, Foucault, Schmitt, League of Nations, United Nations
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2006/2007
• Typ práce: disertační práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra mezinárodních vztahů (23-KMV)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. Ing. Petr Drulák, Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 18.03.2011
• Datum zadání: 18.03.2011
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 23.05.2011 00:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: IPS FSV UK, U Kříže 8, Praha 5 - Jinonice
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 21.03.2011
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 23.05.2011
• Oponenti: prof. Mgr. Oldřich Bureš, Ph.D., M.A.

Seznam odborné literatury

Následující výčet se omezuje na použitou sekundární literaturu. Seznam archivních zdrojů a primární literatury (tj. zdrojů, z nichž byly čerpána vyjádření) je součástí disertační práce.

Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. 1973. Dialectic of Enlightement. New York: Continuum.
Agamben, Georgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Agamben, Georgio. 2005. State of Exception. Trans. Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, Sean and Stephen Sloan. 1995. Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1972. On Violence. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Aronson, Ronald. 2001. Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Aronson, Ronald, 2005. Camus versus Sartre: The Unresolved Conflict. Sartre Studies International 11(1-2): 302-310.
Ashley, Richard. 1984. The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization 38(2): 225-286.
Ashley, Richard. 1989. “Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism and War,” in International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Eds. James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Bach Jensen, Richard. 2001. The United States, International Policing, and the War against Anarchist Terrorism, 1900-1914. Terrorism and Political Violence 13(1): 15-46.
Bach Jensen, Richard. 2004. Daggers, Rifles and Dynamite: Anarchist Terrorism in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Terrorism and Political Violence 16(1): 116-153.
Bach Jensen, Richard. 2008. Nineteenth Century Anarchist Terrorism: How Comparable to the Terrorism of al-Qaeda. Terrorism and Political Violence 20(4): 589-596.
Bach Jensen, Richard. 2009. The International Campaign Against Anarchist Terrorism, 1880-1930. Terrorism and Political Violence 21(1): 89-109.
Barša, Pavel and Josef Fulka. 2005. Michel Foucault: Politika a estetika. Praha: Dokořán.
Bartelson, Jens. 1995. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif. 1975. Methodological Options for International Legal Control of Terrorism. International Terrorism and Political Crimes. Ed. M. Cherif Bassiouni. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Editions Galilee.
Baxter, Richard. 1974. A Skeptical Look at the Concept of Terrorism. Akron Law Review 7(3): 380-387.
Bell, J. Bowyer. 1977. Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi, and the Palestine Underground, 1929-1949. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Beneš, Vít. 2008. „Diskurzivní analýza,“ in Jak zkoumat politiku. Ed. Petr Drulák. Praha: Portál.
Benjamin, Walter. 1978. “The Critique of Violence,” in Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms and Autobiographical Writings. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Benoist, Alain. 2007. “Global Terrorism and the State of Permanent Exception: The Significance of Carl Schmitt’s Thought Today,” in The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt. Eds. Louiza Odysseos and Fabio Petito. London: Routledge.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. 1975. The Puritan Origins of the American Self. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bergen, Peter and Katherine Tindemann. 2009a. The Drone War. The New Republic, July 3.
Bergen, Peter and Katherine Tindemann. 2009b. Revenge of the Drones. The New America Foundation. Retrieved from <http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/revenge_of_the_drones >.
Bessner, Daniel and Michael Stauch. 2010. Karl Heinzen and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Terror. Terrorism and Political Violence 22(2): 143-176.
Bílková, Veronika. 2006. Definice terorismu. Paper presented at a conference „Právne aspekty boja proti medzinarodnemu terorismu,“ Bratislava, July 4.
Bleiker, Roland. 1997. Forget IR Theory. Alternatives 22: 57-85.
Brownlie, Ian. 1998. Principles of Public International Law. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bryce, James et al. 1917. Proposals for the Prevention of Future Peace. London: Allen and Unwin.
Burnett, Jonathan and David Whyte. 2005. Embedded Expertise and the „War on Terror“. Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1(4): 1-18.
Butler, Judith. 2002. Guantanamo Limbo. The Nation, April 1.
Butterfield, Herbert. 1931. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: G. Bell and Sons.
Cameron, Gavin. 2004. Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism Research: Past and Future. Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. Ed. Andrew Silke. London: Frank Cass.
Campbell, David. 1998. Writing Security. Revised Edition. Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press.
Cardona, Meliton. 1992. The European Response to Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 4(4): 245-254.
Carr, Edward H. 1946. The Twenty Years’ Crisis. London: Macmillan.
Cassese, Antonio. 1995. Self-Determination of Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cassese, Antonio. 2001. Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law. European Journal of International Law 12(5): 993-1001.
Chaliand, Gerard and Arnaud Blin, eds. 2007. The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to Al Qaeda. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Claude, Inis. 1966. Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations. International Organization 20(3): 367-379.
Connolly, William. 2002. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Expanded Edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Constantinou, Costas. 2004. States of Political Discourse: Words, Regimes, Seditions. London: Routledge.
O’Connell, Mary Ellen. 2002. Evidence of Terror. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 7(1): 19-36.
Cox, Robert. 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millenium 10(2): 126-155.
Crenshaw, Martha. 2000. The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century. Political Psychology 21(2): 405-420.
Crenshaw, Martha. 2005. The Name Game. Foreign Policy, July 1.
De Feo, Michael. 2006. The Political Offence Concept in Regional and International Conventions related to Terrorism. International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism. Ed. Giuseppe Nesi. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Deflem, Mathieu. 2002. Policing World Society: Historical Foundations of International Police Cooperation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deflem, Mathieu. 2005. „Wild Beast without Nationality,“ in Handbook of Transnational Crime and Justice. Ed. Philip Reichel. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Delbanco, Andrew. 1989. The Puritan Ordeal. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Der Derian, James. 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. London: Blackwell.
Der Derian, James and Michael J. Shapiro, eds. 1989. International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Der Derian, James. 1992. Anti-Diplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed and War. London: Blackwell.
Der Derian, James. 2005. Imaging Terror: Logos, Ethos and Pathos. Third World Quaterly 26(1): 23-37.
Derrida, Jacques. 1978a. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1978b. “Cogito and the History of Madness,” in Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1994. Force de lois. Paris: Galilée.
Devji, Faisal. 2005. Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ditrych, Ondrej. 2010. Afghanistan Now! Paper presented at a conference „Middle East after the War on Terror,“ Metropolitan University, Prague, March 12.
Ditrych, Ondrej and Emil Souleimanov. 2008. The Internationalisation of the Russian-Chechen Conflict: Myths and Reality. Europe-Asia Studies 60(7): 1199-1222.
Dunér, Bertil. 2007. The World Community and the „Other“ Terrorism. London: Lexington Books.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie. 2004. State Sponsors of Terrorism. Issues of International Responsibility. Enforcing International Law against Terrorism. Ed. Andrea Bianchi. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Edmonds, David and John Eidinow. 2001. Wittgenstein’s Poker. New York: Ecco Press.
Esenwein, George. 2008. Comments on James Gelvin’s Al-Qaeda and Anarchism: A Historian’s Reply to Terrorology. Terrorism and Political Violence 20(4): 597-600.
Evangelista, Matthew. 2008. Law, Ethics and the War on Terror. Cambridge: Polity.
Evans, Bred. 2010. Foucault’s Legacy: Security, War and Violence in the 21st Century. Security Dialogue 41(4): 413-433.
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and Power. Second Edition. New York: Longman.
Farr, James. 1982. Historical Concepts in Political Science: The Case of ‚Revolution.‘ American Journal of Political Science 26(4): 688-708.
Ferguson, Niall. 2006. The War of the World. London: Penguin.
Foucault, Michel. 1961. Folie et Déraison. Paris: Plot.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1969. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucalt, Michel. 1970. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ed. D.F. Bouchard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. “The Confession of the Flesh,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, Michel. 1983. “On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress,” in Michel Foucault. Edited by Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1984. “What is Enlightement?” in The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1997. Archæology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 2000a. “Truth and Juridical Forms,” in Power. Edited by James Faubion. The Essential Works of Foucault, Vol. 3. Series edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: New Press.
Foucault, Michel. 2000b. “Truth and Power,” in Power. Edited by James Faubion. The Essential Works of Foucault, Vol. 3. Series edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: New Press.
Foucault, Michel. 2000c. “Subject and Power,” in Power. Edited by James Faubion. The Essential Works of Foucault, Vol. 3. Series edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: New Press.
Foucault, Michel. 2004. Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France (1975-1976). New York: Penguin.
Foucault, Michel. 2010. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France (1978-1979). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Franck, Thomas and Bert Lockwood. 1974. Preliminary Thoughts towards an International Convention on Terrorism. The American Journal of International Law 68(1): 69-90.
Freestone, David. 1997. International Cooperation against Terrorism and the Development of International Law Principles of Jurisdiction. Terrorism and International Law. Ed. Rosalyn Higgins and Maurice Flory. London: Routledge.
Friedlander, Robert. 1979a. Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control. Volume I. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.
Friedlander, Robert. 1979b. Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control. Volume II. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.
Friedlander, Robert. 1981. Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control. Volume III. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York. Free Press.
Gaddis, John. 1996. History, Science and the Study of International Relations. Explaining International Relations since 1945. Ed. Ngaire Woods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaddis, John L. 2004. Surprise, Security and the American Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gaddis, John L. 2005. The Cold War: A New History. London: Penguin.
Gasser, Hans-Peter. 2002. Acts of Terror, ‘Terrorism’ and International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 84(847): 547-570.
Gearty, Conor. 1991. Terror. London: Faber and Faber.
George, Jim. 1989. „International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space,“ International Studies Quaterly 33(3): 269-279.
George, Jim. 1994. Discourses of Global Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Gelvin, James. 2008. Al-Qaeda and Anarchism: A Historian’s Reply to Terrorology. Terrorism and Political Violence 20(4): 563-581.
George, David. 1988. Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism. The Review of Politics 50(3): 391-396.
George, Alexander. 1991. The Discipline of Terrorology. Western State Terrorism. Ed. Alexander George. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gioia, Andrea. 2006. The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism. International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism. Ed. Giuseppe Nesi. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Glaser, Stefan. 1973. Le terrorisme international et ses divers aspects. Revue internationale de droit comparé 25(4): 825-850.
Gordon, Avishag. 2004. Terrorism and Knowledge Growth: A Databases and Internet Analysis. Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. Ed. Andrew Silke. London: Frank Cass.
Grant, J.R. 1965. A Note on the Tone of Greek Diplomacy. The Classical Quaterly 15: 261-266.
Gray, John. 2003. Al-Qaeda and What it Means to be Modern. London: Faber and Faber.
Grob-Fitzgibbon, Benjamin. 2004. From the Dagger to the Bomb: Karl Heinzen and the Evolution of Political Terror. Terrorism and Political Violence 16(1): 97-115.
Gunning, Jeroen. 2007. A Case for Critical Terrorism Studies? Government and Opposition 42(3): 363-393.
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1988. Empirical Research on Political Terrorism: The State of the Art and How it Might be Improved. Current Perspectives on International Terrorism. Ed. Robert Slater and Michael Stohl. New Yortk: St. Martin’s Press.
Haas, Peter. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1-35.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1986. „The Genealogical Writing of History: On Some Aporias in Foucault’s Theory of Power.“ Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 10(1): 1-9.
Hafner, Gerhard. 2006. The Definition of the Crime of Terrorism. International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism. Ed. Giuseppe Nesi. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.
Harkabi, Yehoshafat. 1968. Fedayeen Action and Arab Strategy. Adelphi Paper no. 53. London: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
Harris, George. 2003. Terrorism, War and Justice: The Concept of Unlawful Enemy Combatant. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 26(1): 31-46.
Hegel, G.W.F. 1991. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herman, Edward and Gerry O’Sullivan. 1990. The Terrorism Industry: The Experts and Institutions that Shape Our View of Terror. New York: Pantheon, 1990.
Heupel, Monika. 2007. Adapting to Transnational Terrorism: The UN Security Council’s Evolving Approach to Terrorism. Security Dialogue 38(4): 477-499.
Higgins, Rosalyn. 1997. The General International Law of Terrorism. Terrorism and International Law. Ed. Rosalyn Higgins and Maurice Flory. London: Routledge.
Higgins, Rosalyn. 2003. Problems and Processes: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hix, Simon. 2005. The Political System of the European Union. Second Edition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1680. The Life of Mr. Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. London: Andrew Crooke.
Hoffman, Bruce. 2006. Inside Terrorism. Second Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hollis, Martin and Steve Smith. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hudson, Manley. 1926. The Progressive Codification of International Law. The American Journal of International Law 20(4): 655-669.
Hudson, Manley. 1938. The Proposed International Criminal Court. The American Journal of International Law 32(3): 549-554.
Jackson, Richard. 2005. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Jackson, Richard. 2006. Genealogy, Ideology and Counter-Terrorism: Writing Wars on Terrorism from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush Jr. Studies in Language and Capitalism 1(1): 163-193.
Jackson, Richard. 2007. Constructing Enemies: ‚Islamic Terrorism‘ in Political and Academic Discourse. Government and Opposition 42(3): 394-426.
Jackson, Richard. 2009. Knowledge, Power and Politics. Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda. Ed. Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth and Jeroen Gunning. London: Routledge.
Jarvis, Lee. 2009. The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies. Security Dialogue 40(1): 5-27.
Jenkins, Brian. 1980. The Study of Terrorism: Definitional Problems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Jurgensmeyer, Mark. 1997. Terror Mandated by God. Terrorism and Political Violence 9(2): 16-23.
Kapitan, Tomis. 2003. The Terrorism of „Terrorism“. Terrorism and International Justice. Ed. James Sterba. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keohane, Robert. 1988. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quaterly 32(4): 379-396.
Kepel, Gilles and Pierre Milelli, eds. 2008. Al Qaeda in its Own Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
King, Gary, Robert Keohane and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2004. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koufa, Kalliopi. 2006. The UN, Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism. International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism. Ed. Giuseppe Nesi. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Second Edition. London: Verso.
Laqueur, Walter. 2001. A History of Terrorism. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Laqueur, Walter. 2003. No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Continuum.
Laqueur, Walter. 2004. The Terrorism to Come. Policy Review 126.
Law, Randall D. 2009. Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lincoln, Bruce. 2007. Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Linebaugh, Peter and Marcus Rediker. 2000. The Many-Headed Hydra. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lyotard, François. 1979. La Condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1988. The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manjikian, Mary. 2008. Diagnosis, Intervention, and Cure: The Illness Narrative in the Discourse of Failed States. Alternatives 33(3): 335-357.
Martin, Gus. 2003. Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues. London: Sage Publications.
Merari, Ariel. 1991. Academic Research and Government Policy on Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 3(1): 88-102.
Milliken, Jennifer. 1999. The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods. European Journal of International Relations 5(2): 225-254.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1996. On the Genealogy of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2005. The Use and Abuse of History. New York: Cosimo.
Odysseos, Louiza and Fabio Petito, eds. 2007. The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt. London: Routledge.
Oppenheim, L.F.L. 1905. International Law: A Treatise. First Volume. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.
Osiander, Andreas. 2001. Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization 55(2): 251-287.
Oudraat, Chantal de Jonge. 2004. The Role of the Security Council. Terrorism and the UN: Before and after September 11. Ed. Jane Boulden and Thomas G. Weiss. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Peterson, M.J. 2004. Using the General Assembly. Terrorism and the UN: Before and after September 11. Ed. Jane Boulden and Thomas G. Weiss. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pinfari, Marco. 2009. Exploring The Terrorist Nature of Political Assassinations: A Reinterpretation of Orsini Attentat. Terrorism and Political Violence 21(4): 580-594.
Prozorov, Sergei. 2005. „Toward a General Theory of Exception.“ Alternatives 30(1): 81-112.
Prozorov, Sergei. 2007a. Foucault, Freedom and Security. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Prozorov, Sergei. 2007b. „The Ethos of Insecure Life: Reading Carl Schmitt’s Existential Decisionism as a Foucauldian Ethics,“ in in The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt. Eds. Louiza Odysseos and Fabio Petito. London: Routledge.
Ranstorp, Magnus. 2006. Mapping Terrorism Research: State of the Art, Gaps and Future Direction. London: Routledge.
Ranstorp, Magnus. 2009. Mapping Terrorism Studies after 9/11: An Academic Fields of Old Problems and New Prospects. Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda. Ed. Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth and Jeroen Gunning. London: Routledge.
Raphael, Sam. 2009. In the Service of Power: Terrorism Studies and US Intervention in the Global South. Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda. Ed. Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth and Jeroen Gunning. London: Routledge.
Rapoport David. 1977. The Politics of Atrocity. Terrorism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Eds. Yonah Alexander and Seymour Finger. New York: John Jay.
Rapoport, David. 1984. Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions. American Political Science Review 78(3): 658-677.
Rapoport, David. 2002. The Four Waves of Modern Terror and September 11. Anthropoetics 8(1).
Rapoport, David. 2005. „Four Waves of Terrorism.“ in Terrorism and Homeland Security. Ed. Dipak G. Gupta. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Rapoport, David, ed. 2006. Terrorism. London: Routledge.
Rapoport, David. 2008. Before the Bomb There Were the Mobs. Terrorism and Political Violence 20 (2): 167-194.
Reid, Edna. 1993. Terrorism Research and the Diffusion of Ideas. Knowledge and Policy 6(1): 17-37.
Reid, Edna. 1997. Evolution of a Body of Knowledge: An Analysis of Terrorism Research. Information Processing and Management 33(1): 91-106.
Ronzitti, Natalino. 2004. The Legality of Covert Operations against Terrorism in Foreign States. Enforcing International Law against Terrorism. Ed. Andrea Bianchi. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Said, Edward. 1988. The Essential Terrorist. Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. Ed. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens. London: Verso.
Said, Edward. 2001a. The Clash of Ignorance. The Nation, October 22.
Said, Edward. 2001b. Reflections on Exile and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Salter, Mark. 2002. Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations. London: Pluto Press.
Sands, Philippe. 2006. Lawless World. London: Penguin.
Santori, Valeria. 2006. The UN Security Council’s (Broad) Interpretation of the Notion of the Threat to Peace in Counter-Terrorism. International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism. Ed. Giuseppe Nesi. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Saul, Ben. 2005. Definition of ‚Terrorism‘ in the UN Security Council: 1985-2004. Chinese Journal of International Law 4(1): 141-166.
Saul, Ben. 2006a. Defining Terrorism in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saul, Ben. 2006b. The Legal Response of the League of Nations to Terrorism. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4(1): 78-102.
Saussure, Ferdinand. 1983. Course in General Lingustics. Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle: Open Court.
Scharf, Michael. 2001. Defining Terrorism as the Peace Time Equivalent of War Crimes: A Case of Too Much Convergence between International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law? ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 7(2): 391-399.
Schmid, Alex. 2004. Terrorism: The Definitional Problem. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 36(2):375-419.
Schmid, Alex and Albert Jongman. 2006. Political Terrorism. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Schmitt, Carl. 1987. The Legal World Revolution. Telos 72: 73-89.
Schmitt, Carl. 1991. Glossarium. Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947-1951. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
Schmitt, Carl. 1996. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2003. Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europeanum. New York: Telos.
Schmitt, Carl. 2004. “Theory of the Partisan.” Telos 127: 11-78.
Schmitt, Carl. 2008. Political Theology II. Cambridge: Polity.
Schwab, George. 1970. The Challenge of the Exception. Berlin: Duncler and Humblot.
Schwab, George. 1987. “Enemy or Foe: A Conflict of Modern Politics.” Telos 72: 194-201.
Scott, James B. 1927. The Gradual and Progressive Codification of International Law. The American Journal of International Law 21(3): 417-450.
Sedgwick, Mark. 2004. Al-Qaeda and the Nature of Religious Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 16(4): 795-814.
Sedlemeier, Alexander. 2007. The Consuming Visions of Late Nineteenth-Century and Early Twentieth-Century Anarchists. European Review of History 14(3): 283-300.
Shulevitz, Judith. 2001. Chasing after Conrad’s Secret Agent. Slate, September 27.
Silke, Andrew. 1998. Cheshire-Cat Logic: The Recurring Theme of Terrorist Abnormality in Psychological Research. Psychology, Crime and Law 4(1): 51-69.
Silke, Andrew. 2004a. An Introduction to Terrorism Research. Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. Ed. Andrew Silke. London: Frank Cass.
Silke, Andrew. 2004b. The Devil You Know: Continuing Problems with Research on Terrorism. Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. Ed. Andrew Silke. London: Frank Cass.
Silke, Andrew. 2009. Contemporary Terrorism Studies: Issues in Research. Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda. Ed. Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth and Jeroen Gunning. London: Routledge.
Simma, Bruno, ed. 2002. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, Quentin. 1969. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory 8(1): 3-53.
Skinner, Quentin. 2008. Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sloan, Stephen. 1978. International Terrorism: Academic Quest, Operational Art and Policy Implications. Journal of International Affairs 32(1): 1-5.
Sofaer, Abraham. 1986. Terrorism and the Law. Foreign Affairs 64(5): 901-922.
Sprintzen, David and Adrian van den Hoven, eds. 2004. Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation. Amherst: Humanity Books.
Taylor, Peter. 1993. States of Terror: Democracy and Political Violence. London: Penguin.
Thiele, Leslie Paul. 1990. „The Agony of Politics: The Nietzschean Roots of Foucault’s Thought.“ American Political Science Review 84(3): 907-925.
Thorup, Mikkel. 2008. The Anarchist and the Partisan: Two Types of Terror in the History of Irregular Warfare. Terrorism and Political Violence 20(3): 333-355.
Thorup, Mikkel. 2009. Enemy of Humanity. The Anti-Piracy Discourse in Present-Day Anti-Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence 21(3): 401-411.
Ó Tuathail, Gearóid. 1999. Understanding Critical Geopolitics. Geopolitics, Geography and Strategy. edited by Colin S. Grey and Geoffrey Sloan. London: Frank Cass Publishing.
Tuck, Richard. 2001. The Rights of War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ulmen, Gary. 1987. “Return of the Foe.” Telos 72: 187-93.
Ulmen, Gary. 2007. “Partisan Warfare, Terrorism and the Problem of a New Nomos of the Earth,” in The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt. Eds. Louiza Odysseos and Fabio Petito. London: Routledge.
Vitoria, Francisco. 1964. De Indis et De iure belli relectiones. Edited by Ernest Nys. New York: Oceana.
Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walters, Francis. 1969. A History of the League of Nations. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ward, Ian. 2009. Law, Text, Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Cynthia. 1995. Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinberger, Eliot. 2005. What I Heard about Iraq. London Review of Books 27(3).
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, Paul. 2002. Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass.
Williams, Michael C. 2003. Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics. International Studies Quaterly 47: 511-531.
Wills, David. 2003. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Wodak, Ruth. 2001. “The Discourse-Historical Approach,” in Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Eds. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer. London: Sage.
Wolfers, Arnold. 1952. „National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol.“ Political Science Quaterly 67(4): 481-502.
Zlataric, Bogdan.1975. History of International Terrorism and its Legal Control. International Terrorism and Political Crimes. Ed. M. Cherif Bassiouni. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Zulaika, Joseba and William A. Douglass. 1996. Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables and Faces of Terrorism. London: Routledge.

Předběžná náplň práce

Ústřední problematikou, ke které se tato disertační práce vztahuje, je legitimita násilí v mezinárodním řádu. Vychází z předpokladů, že v diskursu se skrývá obrovská tvořivá moc nad věcmi a zároveň značná část státního násilí v tomto mezinárodním řádu je diskursivně legitimizována odcizením svého objektu coby „teroristy“. Za účelem zpřítomnění neviditelných praktik moci a vědění zvěcňujících terorismus v diskursu a na základě těchto východisek uplatňuje na diskurs terorismu mezi státy dosud plně nerozvinutou metodu kritické vědy: foucaultovskou genealogii.

Protože se jedná o projekt kritický, hlavním záměrem práce není zformulovat novou teorii teroristy, ale – slovy Michela Foucaulta – činit snadná gesta složitými. Činí tak vymezením se proti dominantním narativům na poli vědění o terorismu, znecitlivělých a zároveň znecitlivujících vůči falešnému realismu objektu a mocenským praktikám, jež ho umožňují, a tak reprodukujících stav společenské narkózy ve vztahu k těmto praktikám vládnutí (governmentality). Coby zvláštní druh historie, „historie přítomnosti“, odhaluje genealogie zvěcňující praktiky terorismu metodou důkladné historizace diskursu, která umožňuje zapomenutí zvěcněného objektu a v důsledku toho (na základě předpokladu, že mezi mocí a věděním existuje konstitutivní vztah) zachování a rozšíření možností politické rekonfigurace. Narozdíl od standardních historií terorismu proto nehledá jeho neměnnou podstatu a nezachycuje jeho lineární vývoj od počátku (pojímaného v duchu Nietzscheova Ursprung) k současnosti. Naopak tvrdí, že terorismus žádný takový počátek neměl. Ukazuje, že v diskursu států byl nahodilý a podmíněný dobovou mocenskou konstelací (Weltkonjunktur), která je konceptualizována s pomocí schmittovského teoretického rámce, a sleduje pozdější kontinuity a diskontinuity tohoto diskursu a vnitřní a vnější podmínky jeho řádu za účelem historizace diskursivních formací současnosti.

V první kapitole (Concerning Method) jsou ustaveny teoretické a metodologické předpoklady analýzy a definovány klíčové foucaultovské a schmittovské koncepty jako diskurs, moc, genealogie (inspirována ve Foucaultově pojetí Nietzschem), nomos a globální občanská válka. Na těchto předpokladech je následně vystavěn podrobný výzkumný plán. Stanovuje rámec zkoumaného diskursu jak z hlediska jeho lokace (mezinárodní fóra Společnosti národů a Organizace spojených národů) a časových sérií (třicátá léta a sedmdesátá léta 20. století a první desetiletí 21. století). Definuje rovněž techniku „čtení“ terorismu, které se zaměřuje na pravidla výlučnosti (law of rarity) a základní diskursy (basic discourses) Sebe/Cizího jako vnitřní podmínky pro artikulaci vyjádření (statements); vazby na jiné diskursy moci; a nakonec na propojení moci a vědění, jehož archeologie zaměřená na objekt, modality vyjadřování, koncepty a diskursivní strategie je následně provedena v každé sérii. Představena je rovněž poststrukturalistická literatura v mezinárodních vztazích, včetně dosavadních pokusů o genealogii jako uplatnění zvláštní metody kritické vědy.

V druhé kapitole (Overture: Against Ursprung) je doložena významová mnohoznačnost „terorismu“ v obecném diskursu doby předcházející 30. léta 20. století. Jsou tak zpochybněny standardní historie terorismu a položeny základy argumentu, že když se terorismus výrazně vynořil v 30. letech 20. století v diskursu mezi státy, jednota tohoto konceptu (který v sobě pojímal vraždu zvlášť chráněných osob a obecný výbuch) byla zcela nahodilá. Terorismus býval spojován s nejrůznějšími druhy násilí – politickým i nepolitickým, individuálním i strukturálním.

Dvě následující kapitoly, Emergence/y (1930s) a Division (1970s) se táží po podmínkách (znovu)vynoření diskursu terorismu mezi státy v 30. a 70. letech 20. století a po vnitřních a vnějších podmínkách tvorby vyjádření v těchto diskursivních sériích. V obou případech bylo vynoření konzervativní reakcí na vnímaný proces hroucení zavedeného řádu a režimu legitimního násilí spojeného se státními zájmy. Diskurs terorismu byl nástrojem disciplinace sjednocujícím (fiktivní) mezinárodní společenství v koalici proti nové a bezprecedentní hrozbě jeho další existenci, která si v odpovědi žádala nasazení výjimečných prostředků. Nicméně protože mocenská konstelace se v obou případech vzhledem k provizornímu obnovení schmittovského nomu během studené války lišila, v druhém zmiňovaném období byly ve výsledku ustaveny dva řády diskursu se dvěma soubory pravidel pro tvorbu vyjádření – řád diskursu prvního světa a řád diskursu (autonomizovaného) třetího světa. Státy druhého světa nezůstávaly bitvě o diskurs, která se rozpoutala v důsledku odporu autonomizovaného třetího světa a která byla organizována póly nestátního revolučního a státního systémového násilí stranou, přesto ze souboru jejich vyjádření není možno analyticky odvodit svébytný řád. Namísto toho se tato vyjádření řídila pravidly vypůjčenými z obou výše zmíněných řádů, avšak více z řádu prvního světa (navzdory tomu, že epistémé podmiňující vyjádření třetího světa byla v zásadě totožné s oficiální propadandou světa druhého). Státy druhého světa se tak zdály vyjadřovat konzervativní preferenci zachování nového provizorního nomu.

Přestože historické kapitoly přinášejí relevantní poznatky samy o sobě (například o zaznamenané legitimizaci násilí státy, které samy zároveň nazývaly teroristickým v řádu diskursu třetího světa v 70. letech), jejich hlavní úloha spočívá v historizaci současného diskursu, který je představen v kapitole poslední, Enclosure (2000s). V konečně zmizelém nomu a jako manifestace globální občanské války dosahuje současný, historicky podmíněný diskurs terorismu svého monumentálního excesu. Podobně jako v diskursu 30. let je v něm přítomna nahodilá jednota objektu, která umožňuje subjektifikaci škály aktérů coby teroristů navzdory jejich prostorovému rozptylu a nespojitosti cílů a strategií jejich dosahování – jsou totiž vtěleni do jedné globální teroristické sítě, se kterou mohou být neproblematicky spojeni též zlotřilé státy, další vyděděnci civilizovaného lidstva. Terorismus je opět pojímán jako bezprecedentní hrozba s možnými apokalyptickými důsledky. Dehumanizace a depolitizace teroristy, která byla přítomna v minulých diskursivních sériích, dosahuje extrému ve vyjádřeních formulovaných ať už v základních diskursech řádu / chaosu a civilizace / barbarství odhalených již ve 30. a 70. letech, nebo nových svébytných diskursech humánnosti / nehumánnosti a dobra / zla. Depolitizace je navíc dosahováno také pojmem terorismu jako nemoci (tato praktika nalézá své kořeny obecně v paradigmatu suverénního vylučujícího rozumu, konkrétněji v diskursu nemoci zachyceného v diskursivní sérii 70. let); nebo výlučným zaměřením (také s kořeny objevenými v 70. letech) na – nelidské – prostředky, k jejichž užití se terorista uchyluje na úkor jakýchkoliv – legitimních či nelegitimních – cílů, které může sledovat. Konstrukt teroristů jako tisíců potenciálně všudypřítomných šílenců, conradovských „tikajících časovaných náloží“ je nakonec zároveň utvrzována dominantními praktikami na poli vědění, zvláště těch, které jsou spojeny s konceptem nového terorismu.

Takto konstruovaný subjekt teroristy podmiňuje nový diskurs akce, kterému dominuje obraz války. Jeho kořeny lze hledat v propojení obecného diskursu terorismu mezi státy v 70. letech a diskursu mezinárodního humanitárního práva (dalšího konzervativního pokusu o zachování existujících mezí legitimního násilí v mezinárodním řádu), ve kterém byl terorismus chápán pouze v úzce vymezeném kontextu ozbrojeného konfliktu. Díky tomuto propojení byl například v diskursu moci i vědění následně normalizován koncept obětí teroristického násilí jako civilistů. Nicméně současná válka proti terorismu je na míle vzdálena jakémukoliv konceptu války tradiční. Terorista – depolitizovaný, dehumanizovaný a redukovaný v chorobu mezinárodního politického těla – se stává totálním nepřítelem, proti němuž a jeho společníkům, včetně zlotřilých států, je uplatňována metoda (chirurgicky prováděného) potírání sociální havěti (social pest control). Narozdíl od 30. let 20. století je nyní diskurs terorismu spojen se sadou disciplinujících a normalizujících nediskursivních praktik. Stává se tak součástí skutečného dispositivu globální politiky, který slouží zároveň jako nástroj americké hegemonie a obecněji k zvládání globálního chaosu ostatními státy disciplinujícími svůj vnitřní, domácí prostor.

„Terorismus“ je pro státy užitečným mocenským aparátem kontroly. Nedojde-li proto ke kolapsu mezinárodního řádu států, zůstane v dohledné budoucnosti tento dispositif zachován. Kritika diskursu terorismu, jak je argumentováno v závěru, si proto udržuje svou relevanci. Hlavní přínos předkládané disertační práce k tomuto projektu spočívá v uplatnění genealogie jako slibné, avšak dosud plně nerozvinuté metody kritické vědy, jejíž závěry stojí na výzkumném plánu, který byl navržen tak, aby umožnil transparentní a intelektuálně disciplinovanou poststrukturalistickou analýzu diskursu (a je potenciálně replikovatelný), a zároveň na obsáhlém

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

The central problem this dissertation aims at addressing is legitimate violence in international order. Starting from the assumption that discourse carries a tremendous creative power and that much of State violence in this order is discursively legitimized by othering its Subject as „Terrorist“, to bring to fore the invisible practices of power and knowledge that reify the object of terrorism in discourse it employs a hitherto underdeveloped method of critical inquiry, Foucault’s genealogy, to the discourse of terrorism among States.

It is a critical project insofar as it does not aim at formulating a new theory of the Terrorist. Instead, to use Michel Foucault’s words, it strives to make facile gestures difficult, by challenging the dominant narratives in the field of terrorism knowledge, insensitized and insensitizing at the same time to the fake realism of the object and to the practices of power that make it possible, thus reproducing societal narcosis toward those practices of government(ality). As a particular kind of history, a history of the present, it uncovers reifying practices of terrorism by proper historicization of the discourse which enables the object’s forgetting and by extension preserving and furthering (assuming the constitutive relationship between power and knowledge) the possibilities of political reconfiguration. Therefore, unlike standard histories of terrorism, it does not look for an immutable essence of terrorism or depict its linear evolution from the origin (Nietzsche’s Ursprung) to the present state. On the contrary, it concludes that there is no such origin of terrorism. Having demonstrated its origin in the discourse of States as accidental and contingent on present power constellation (Weltkonjunktur) conceptualized by using Carl Schmitt’s theoretical framework it traces later continuities and discontinuities in States’s discourses of terrorism and internal and external conditions of their order to historicize the present discursive formations.

In the first chapter (Concerning Method), theoretical and methodological assumptions are articulated and key concepts such as, among other, Foucault’s concepts of discourse, power and genealogy (the last inspired by Nietzsche) and Schmitt’s concepts of the nomos and global civil war are established. A detailed research design drawing upon those assumptions is constructed. It delimits the scope of the discourse in terms of loci (international fora of League of Nations and the United Nations) and time (three discursive series: 1930s, the 1970s and the 2000s). It also defines the technique of „reading of terrorism“, concentrating on law of rarity and basic discourses of Self/Other as internal discursive conditions for articulation of statements; links to other discourses of power; and finally the nexus of power and knowledge, the archæology of which, focused on object, enunciative modalities, concepts and discursive strategies, is performed for each discursive series. An overview of Poststructuralist literature in International Relations, including the heretofore use of genealogy as a method of critical inquiry is also provided.

The second chapter (Overture: Against Ursprung) demonstrates multiplicity of meaning of terrorism in the general discourse of the period preceding the 1930s. It is done at once to undermine the Ursprung-based standard histories of terrorism and to prepare ground for the conclusion that when terrorism emerged in the discourse among States in the 1930s, the unity of the concept (embracing assassination of protected persons and mass explosion) was purely accidental when contrasted to the variety of violence (both political and nonpolitical, or individual and structural) with which it had once been associated.

The two following chapters, Emergence/y (1930s) and Division (1970s) inquire into the conditions of (re)emergence of the discourse of terrorism among States in the 1930s and the 1970s, and into the internal and external rules for enunciation of statements in those discursive series. In both cases it is concluded that the emergence was a status quo reaction to what was seen as impending implosion of the established order and regime of legitimate violence linked to state interests. The discourse of terrorism was a disciplinary device uniting the (fictional) international community in a coalition against a new and unprecended threat to its continued survival, hence requiring an exceptional response. Since the constellation of power differed in each case, however (due to the provisional restoration of Schmitt’s nomos during the Cold War), in the latter period there finally obtained not a single, but dual order of discourse featuring two sets of rules for statements’ articulation. These are identified as First World’s discursive order and (autonomizing) Third World’s discursive order. The Second World States did not shy away from the battle about terrorism which broke out due to the autonomizing Third World’s resistence and which turned around the poles of nonstate revolutionary and state systemic violence. Yet no discrete discursive order could be analytically derived from the multiplicity of their statements, and they tended to borrow from both of the above, but – betraying a conservative preference for the new provisional nomos – more from the First World’s discourse (that despite the Third World’s epistémé underlying its statements being fundamentally the same as that of the official Second World’s propaganda).

While presenting historically relevant conclusions in their own right (e.g. about the legitimization by States of violence that they themselves considered „terrorist“ in the 1970s Third World’s discursive order), the historical chapters’ key role lies in historicization of the present discourse put forward in the last chapter, Enclosure (2000s). In definite absence of nomos and as a manifestation of the global civil war, the present, historically contingent discourse of terrorism reaches its monumental excess. It features, similarly to the discourse of the 1930s, an accidental unity of the object that enables subjectification of a wide array of actors as Terrorists – their disparate and disconnected locations, agendas and strategies notwithstanding – forming one global terror network with which rogues states, outcasts of the civilized mankind, can also be unproblematically associated. Once more, terrorism is conceived as an unprecedented threat with possibly apocalypting consequence. Dehumanization and depoliticization of the Terrorist, present in the previous series, has reached its extreme in statements articulated in the historically familiar basic discourses of order / chaos and civilization / barbarism of the 1930s and the 1970s and new discrete discurses of humanity / inhumanity and good / evil. Depoliticization is carried through also by rendering terrorism a disease, a discursive practice which finds its roots generally in the paradigm of sovereign (and excluding) reason, and more specifically in the discourse of disease encountered in the 1970s series; or by an exclusive focus, the roots of which too are found in the 1970s, on (inhumane) means the Terrorist employs rather than any possible (legitimate or not) ends he may pursue. The construction of Terrorists as thousands of potentially omnipresent madmen, Conradesque „ticking time bombs“ has finally been sustained by the dominant practices in the field of knowledge, particularly by those related to the concept of new terrorism.

The Terrorist Subject thus constructed conditions a new discourse of action – one dominated by the image of war. The roots of this image may be located in the linkage between the general discourse of terrorism among States in the 1970s and the discourse of international humanitarian law (yet another conservative attempt at preservation of the existing limits of legitimate violence in the international order), where terrorism was conceived only within the narrowly defined borders of armed conflict. Henceforward, for example, in the discourse of both power and knowledge the concept of victims of terrorist violence as civilians would be normalized. But the present war against terrorism is far from any traditional war: depoliticized, dehumanized and reduced to a disease of the international body politic, the Terrorist comes to represent a total enemy against whom and his associates, including rogue states, a (surgical) social pest control is performed. In contrast to the 1930s, the discourse of terrorism is linked to a set of disciplinary and normalizing nondiscursive practices. Thus it forms a part of a true dispositif or power management apparatus of global politics, which serves at once as a means of America’s hegemony and more generally of management of global disorder by other States disciplining their domestic realms.

Since „terrorism“ is a useful power management apparatus for States, unless there comes a fundamental change in terms of collapse of States’s international order it is likely to remain in place for a foreseeable future. Therefore, it is concluded, the critique of the discourse of terrorism as part of the dispositif continues to matter. This dissertation’s main contribution to this project lies in employing genealogy as a promising but so far underdeveloped method of critical inquiry, the conclusions of which are reached using a potentially reproducable research design constructed with the aim of providing for a transparent and intellectually disciplined Poststructuralist discourse analysis, and are sustained by extensive mass of archival material and literature.