Democracy does not engage in terror; authoritarian regimes do. This has been a common perception in international political discourse, one that has held strong for decades. It has forged the assumption that terrorism and liberal democracy are antonyms—that is, concepts that necessarily oppose each other. Yet their relationship is far more complicated. Scratching the surface of international politics, we can easily find traces of past terror in several contemporary democratic states. Recent global political developments—from the United States to Venezuela, Iran, Israel, and China—are highlighting the precariousness of long- established assumptions, including those concerning terrorism and its role in global politics. This course takes the relationship between terrorism and liberal democracy as its starting point. It introduces students to basic theoretical approaches, the historical backdrop of terror practices, as well as their strategies, causes, and actual impact.
The course is open only for students of master's degree programmes.
Last update: Bartůšek Jaroslav, Bc. (04.02.2026)
Demokracie se nezabývá terorismem, autoritářské režimy ano. Toto je běžný názor v mezinárodním politickém diskurzu, který se udržuje již desítky let. Vytvořil předpoklad, že terorismus a liberální demokracie jsou antonyma, tedy pojmy, které se nutně vzájemně vylučují. Jejich vztah je však mnohem složitější. Stačí se podívat na povrch mezinárodní politiky a snadno najdeme stopy minulého teroru v několika současných demokratických státech. Nedávný globální politický vývoj – od Spojených států po Venezuelu, Írán, Izrael a Čínu – poukazuje na nejistotu dlouhodobě zavedených předpokladů, včetně těch, které se týkají terorismu a jeho role v globální politice. Tento kurz vychází ze vztahu mezi terorismem a liberální demokracií. Seznamuje studenty se základními teoretickými přístupy, historickým pozadím teroristických praktik, jejich strategiemi, příčinami a skutečným dopadem.
Kurz je otevřen pouze pro studenty magisterských studijních programů.
Last update: Bartůšek Jaroslav, Bc. (04.02.2026)
Aim of the course
By the end of the course, students will be able to formulate their own hypotheses and develop autonomous critical thinking on the subject. In particular, they will be able to:
Understand the many faces of terrorism and situate them within the broader spectrum of political violence and unconventional warfare
Identify the major trends in political discourse on terrorism, their theoretical foundations, as well as their strengths and limitations
Problematise notions of terrorism, liberal democracy, and authoritarianism through historical precedents, and explore ruptures and continuities in contemporary forms of terrorism
Become acquainted with sources and research practices related to the topic
Discuss the successes and failures of both terrorism and counter-terrorism strategies
Familiarise themselves with present-day debates and threats and, ideally, formulate their own hypotheses regarding possible measures to address them
Last update: Bartůšek Jaroslav, Bc. (04.02.2026)
Course completion requirements
Grading is based on the Dean's Measure Directive SO 002 17/2023.
Hoffman, Bruce (2006): “Defining Terrorism,” in Inside Terrorism. Washington D.C.: Columbia University Press, 1-41.
Chomsky, Noam (1967): “The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act? Noam Chomsky debates with Hannah Arendt, Susan Sontag, et al., December 15, 1967, at http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm
Millington, Chris (2024): Cultures of Terrorism, in The Invention of Terrorism in France, 1904-1939, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 6-21.
Session 2
Chenoweth, Erica (2013): “Terrorism and Democracy,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 16 355-378.
Wilkinson, Paul (2011): Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response [Third Edition], Abingdon: Routledge, 22-40.
Abrahms, Max (2007): 'Why Democracies Make Superior Counterterrorists', Security Studies, 16:2, 223-253
Session 3
Chaliand, Gérard, and Arnaud Blin, (2007) eds. The History of Terrorism. From Antiquity to Al Qaeda. Berkeley etc: University of California Press, Introduction.
Rapoport, David (2002): The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism, Anthropoetics, 8, 1, 2002
McConaghy, K. J. (2022). Can states be terrorists? In D. Muro, & T. Wilson (Eds.), Contemporary terrorism studies, 260-280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Session 4
Tilly, Charles (1985): War Making and State Making as Organized Crime in Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (eds.) Bringing the State Back, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169-187.
Fellman, Michael (2010): In the name of God and the County. Reconsidering Terrorism in American History, New Haven: Yale University Press, Intro
Hoffman, Bruce (2015): Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947. New York: Knopf Publishing Group, 290-308
Session 5
I Sánchez-Cuenca, I & P Aguilar (2009) ‘Terrorist Violence and Popular Mobilization: The Case of the Spanish Transition to Democracy’, Politics & Society, 37: 3, 428-453
English, Richard (2008). Irish freedom: Pan Macmillan, Ch 6.
Hoffman, Bruce (2006): “The End of Empire and the Origins of Modern Terrorism,” in Inside Terrorism. Washington D.C.: Columbia University Press, 43-62
Meier, William (2025): Terror’s Triumph. The British Empire and the Origins of Modern Terrorism, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Prologue, ix-xxiii
Session 6
Heberer, Thomas (2009). ‘The “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”: China’s Modern Trauma’. Journal of Modern Chinese History 3, no. 2, 165–81.
Harris, James (2016) The Great Fear: Stalin’s Terror of the 1930s. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 15-36.
Dams, Carsten, and Michael Stolle (2014). The Gestapo: Power and Terror in the Third Reich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-118.
Session 7
Newman, Edward (2006): Exploring the “Root Causes” of Terrorism, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29:8, 749-772.
Crenshaw, Martha (1981) The Causes of Terrorism, Comparative Politics, Vol. 13, No. 4, 379-399.
Horgan, John (2008): From Profiles to Pathways and Roots to Routes: Perspectives from Psychology on Radicalization into Terrorism, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618, 1, 80-94.
Session 8
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG510.html
Ould Mohamedou, Mahmoud (2011): Understanding Al Qaeda: Changing War and Global Politics, Pluto Press, 42-89.
Sageman, Marc (2008): Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century (University of Pennsylvania Press, 125-146.
Malet, David (2013): Foreign Fighters: Transnational Identity in Civil Conflicts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 14-32
Session 9
Aitken, Rob. 2010. ‘Consociational Peace Processes and Ethnicity: The implications of the Dayton and Good Friday Agreements for Ethnic Identities and Politics in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Northern Ireland’, in Guelke, Adrian (ed), The Challenges of Ethno-Nationalism: Case Studies in Identity Politics (Palgrave).
Vukusic, Iva (2023): Serbian Paramilitaries and the Breakup of Yugoslavia State Connections and Patterns of Violence, London:Routledge, ch. 2.
Petersen, Roger (2002): Understanding Ethnic Violence. Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in TwentiethCentury Eastern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40-61.
Session 10
Cook, David (2009): Islamism and Jihadism: The Transformation of Classical Notions of Jihad into an Ideology of Terrorism, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 10, 2, 177-187. 4
Lifton, Robert J. (1999): Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyō, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism. New York: Metropolitan Books, Intro.
Baker, Kelly (2017): Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK's Appeal to Protestant America, 1915- 1930, Kansas University press, 97-121.
Session 11
Jackson, Richard (2005): Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, ch.4.
Michaelsen, C. (2005): “Derogating from International Human Rights Obligations in the 'War Against Terrorism'? - A British-Australian Perspective”, Terrorism and Political Violence, 17:1, 131 – 155.
English, Richard (2009): Terrorism: How to Respond, Oxford: OUP, Chapter 4.
Session 12
Richardson, Louise (2005): What Terrorists Want, London: Random House, ch. 7.
Dershowitz, Alan M. (2002): Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1-14 and 106-131.
Raufer, Xavier (1993): ‘The Red Brigades: Farewell to Arms.’ Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 16, no. 4, 315–25.
This module is designed to introduce students to the theme of terrorism and its development across various institutional and historical contexts. A basic grasp of modern European history is useful, as it constitutes part of the case-study material discussed, but it is not essential, as background readings will be provided. A basic understanding of theoretical approaches to International Relations is also helpful, though not strictly necessary. The module convenor remains committed to providing additional materials and explanations where needed. Consequently, none of these elements should deter interested students from attending. The module consists of 12 teaching sessions, each lasting 1 hour and 20 minutes.
Sessions are grouped into pairs of consecutive classes, with a 15-minute break in between. Each session is divided into approximately 50 minutes of frontal teaching, followed by a 30-minute in-class discussion. For each class, the module convenor will provide a list of readings, of which two are mandatory and the remainder optional. Students may choose which mandatory readings to complete. The readings are essential for a full understanding of the session themes and for informed participation in discussions. At any time, students are entitled to interrupt the lecturer to ask for clarification.
Use of generative AI tools:
The use and citation of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or MS Copilot) in seminar papers and other coursework must comply with the decrees of the IMS Director No. 7/2023 and 9/2023.
Generative AI tools may be used unless explicitly prohibited by the instructor. However, they may not be used to generate substantial sections of the text or replace the student's own intellectual contribution. The student remains fully responsible for any content generated with the assistance of AI tools.
Presenting AI-generated content, whether verbatim, rephrased, or only slightly modified, as one's own work constitutes plagiarism.
Every submitted paper must include a transparent statement specifying which generative AI tools were used, in which stage of the work they were employed, and how they were used, or confirming that no generative AI tools were used. If this statement is missing or incomplete, the instructor is not permitted to accept the paper for evaluation.
Unless the instructor explicitly prohibits the use of generative AI tools, the decision to use or not to use them rests fully with the student. The student has the right to request that the instructor does not use AI assistance for evaluating their work.
Last update: Bartůšek Jaroslav, Bc. (04.02.2026)
Requirements to the exam
Students are expected to attend all seminars and actively participate in class discussions. They are also required to complete the assigned readings and prepare for seminars in advance. The final assessment of a 5,000-word paper (in English), excluding footnotes/endnotes and bibliography. Students have full freedom in choosing the topic of their final paper, provided it relates to the core themes of the module. Final papers must be submitted via the appropriate Moodle submission link by the final week of the semester. Students are entitled to consult the module convenor as often as needed, through previously arranged inperson meetings or Zoom consultations.
