The Impact of State Sponsored Terrorism on International Relations - Management Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Task:

The impact of state-sponsored terrorism on international relations is well documented.
Terrorism manifests itself in numerous ways. Most people are aware of the faces of terror, but few realise that these acts of terror are frequently backed and funded by the governments of well-known countries, such as the United States or France. When it comes to the impact of state-sponsored terrorism on global relations, I'll draw on both classical realism and constructivist theory to illustrate how the constructivist approach is superior. To understand classical realism, it is necessary to understand the interactions of state agents. The classical realism approach is based on three key principles: state-centeredness, rationality, and power.
In order to achieve political objectives, state-sponsored terrorism is handled by government actors. In such circumstances, "countries that saw themselves as victims" of some global injustice encourage acts of violence in order to induce fear and compel people to change their behaviour. Due to the fact that the majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by non-state actors, terrorism poses a challenge for the realist worldview. Despite the fact that state actors' responses and decisions impact the outcome of international relations, non-state actors are involved in actual acts of terrorism. Groups or individuals who wield political power but do not have the legal standing of a state are referred to as non-state actors (NSAs). Attacking non-combatants using violence and intimidation tactics, terrorist groups are a subset of NSAs that use violence and fear to influence political outcomes in order to achieve their objectives. Even when an attack is carried out by a non-state actor, the state-centric approach draws attention to the dominant position of a state or nation. When it comes to controlling territory and defending one's power position in this environment, state actors, whether militarily, economically, politically, or geographically, play the most important role.
Based on realist principles, the goal of a state in responding to acts of terrorism should be to confront the state actor who is responsible, rather than to launch a direct attack against the non-state actor. Politics has a significant impact on how these issues are addressed. Whenever there is a sense of impending doom, the United States, as an international superpower, is usually one of the first to respond publicly. While the United States encourages the afflicted countries to "manage terrorism within their borders" and maintain control over the situation, the United States does not. "Decreasing impact on the strength of sovereign governments" is regularly observed in global security measures initiated by terrorists (Demir 40). A failure to do so successfully will, it is believed, result in the state losing sovereign authority to cope with the threat, making it subject to military intervention by countries such as the United States. Whenever the authority of a powerful nation is reduced, it frequently results in conflict between the powerful nation and others who are assisting it. When it comes to state-sponsored terrorism, there are usually at least two state players whose activities have an impact on the outcome of a terrorist attack. In most cases, there are three or more state actors. The Syrian Civil War serves as a great example of a powerful state's backing for terrorists in action.... When the Assad-led Syrian government implemented its policies in 2011, it drew considerable condemnation and anger around the world. In order to oust the corrupt Assad regime, Syrian rebels and a slew of other organisations teamed together to stage a coup. Many Western players, notably the United States, have backed the Syrian rebels, providing them with military training and support. As a result of this uprising, which has come to be known as the Arab Spring, the Assad dictatorship has faced a great deal of conflict and opposition. While the United States helped Syrian rebels in their attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, Russia intervened to keep Assad in power. Syria today finds itself in a "failed or weak state," which is causing significant divisions among its citizens. As a result of the coup's failure (Gaibulloev 719). Since then, numerous studies have revealed that failed states like these are attractive to terrorist organisations. US-backed Syrian rebels evolved into ISIS, a terrorist organisation that took advantage of Syria's weakened infrastructure to carry out its attacks across the country. Terrorism sponsored by a state is defined as when the government provides official training and supplies to a non-state organisation that has terroristic aspirations. Two state actors, namely Russia and the United States, are credited with having affected the outcome of the Arab Spring. Despite the fact that the purpose of Western actors was to overthrow Syria's tyrant, the act of supplying and arming these rebels can be classified as state-sponsored terrorism in the United States.
When it comes to terrorism, it is easy to find justifications for the actions of both states and non-state actors. National governments, particularly those with significant weight, behave in a manner that is beneficial to international relations, according to realist principles of foreign policy. In the wake of a full cost-benefit analysis, the state decides whether to seek peace with the state that hosts the opposing non-state party or to retaliate with military force. The state chooses the most cost-effective course of action. Gaibulloev (707), for example, notes that “the macroeconomic repercussions of terrorism are typically minor... and short-term.” Nonetheless, most governments are reluctant to “act against the terrorists” (Gaibulloev 719) until major players such as the United States or the United Kingdom have done so first. When a minor country does not have the support of a large nation, the risk of retribution is usually not worth it because it invites more non-state attacks. If the United States takes a diplomatic approach to the matter, the likelihood of a repeat attack is lessened, because either the state-actor supporting the NSA will have been appeased or the threat will have been destroyed by another powerful country. The airstrikes on Aleppo, Syria, may serve as a timely reminder of the gravity of the situation in the present day and age. Russian forces continue to bombard Aleppo in Syria, despite the high number of civilian casualties, in an attempt to rid the country of ISIS militants completely. As a result of adopting a realism perspective, the United States exclusively responds to state-sponsored terrorism and not to non-state actors responsible for it. In contrast to Russia, which has responded to the NSA with force, the United States has taken a humanitarian posture in try to decrease the number of civilian victims from the attack. Despite the fact that both countries are acting reasonably in order to guarantee global collective security, their approaches are very different. Despite the high death toll, it is possible to appreciate Russia's choice to eradicate the terrorist organisation rather than seek diplomatic sanctions, which they would likely refuse.
In politics, the ambition to achieve power lies at the heart of everything that happens. This paradigm places a strong emphasis on the interests of governments in sustaining and securing their own authority. The fact that power can shift quickly in the international system means that realists are dependent heavily on a strong military to maintain their position. The majority of the time, when a state-sponsored act of terrorism happens, a military-based response is deployed. It is widely believed that military force is the cure for all national security problems. When a country seeks to take action against a non-state actor that has received funding and backing from another country, conflicts between the two countries can arise. As a result of the Arab Spring battle, political tensions arose between the two state participants, with the United States "secretly aid[ing]...through finances" (Sandler 257) and Russia supporting Syrian President Bashar al-political Assad's dictatorship. But the Middle East conflict continued, despite the fact that both countries were in a position to influence it. Realistically speaking, this indicates how two state actors might use NSAs to exert control over politics in their respective countries. Contrary to classical realism, which emphasises the ability of individuals to respond to and interact with any party based on their own perceptions and experience with other actors, constructivism emphasises the ability of individuals to respond to and interact with any party based on their own perceptions and experience with other actors, as well as the ability of individuals to respond to and interact with others based on their own perceptions and experience with other actors. Individual rewards, societal standards, and one's own identity are all important aspects of constructivism. The perpetrators of terror acts are non-state actors, rather than state actors, who supervise state-sponsored terrorism in order to achieve political objectives. As long as the state is the most major player, realists will be unable to assign them a meaningful role. Contrary to this, the constructivist perspective holds that non-state actors' activities have an impact on the international system's response and decisions. It is vital to know the principles that a state holds dear before understanding how it regards its allies and threats. In the absence of a thorough grasp of a state's norms, it is hard to predict how it will restrict an actor's actions. To understand how a country handles foreign relations, it is necessary to first recognise the social norms that exist within that country.
Despite the fact that individual identification is less significant in realism than it is in fiction, the perspective and character that a state associates with an actor impacts how they will react when they are in their presence. The likelihood of a state responding negatively to an actor, whether state or non-state, increases if the state regards the actor as a danger. However, the likelihood of a state responding positively increases if the state considers the actor as harmless. Generally speaking, the distribution of power among players impacts how a state views other countries in general. Increasing the control and military force of a nation increases the nation's strength. It is the United States' ability to assert its dominance in international affairs that has propelled it to the position of hegemon. A weaker state, such as North Korea, is more likely than a stronger state, such as the United States, to respond with military force because the latter has no need or concern for such action. Despite its nuclear weapons, North Korea is unable to pose a real danger to the international community. However, if the state is militarily challenged by a country whose military puts the state's own military at risk, such as Russia, the United States will label that country as a threat to the United States. It is the state's sponsorship of a non-state actor, as well as the level of authority held by the non-state actor, that defines how the state will respond to acts of state-sponsored terrorism.
Since it had been determined who the danger actor was, that individual would now be elevated to the top of the priority list and dealt with in whatever manner was necessary. The choice between attempting to resolve a dispute diplomatically or resorting to armed action is reliant on the identity that a state assigns to a particular party. In the event if a state felt threatened by a non-state actor, this would be an example of what would happen. It is possible that they will proceed to categorise that individual as a potential terrorist threat after that. Immediate after the September 11th attacks on America, the United States adopted a policy of "fighting against networks" (Demir 47), which meant tracking down and destroying the NSA groups responsible for such attacks, in this case Al Qaeda, as well as retaliating against their forces as soon as possible after the attacks. The United States Congress determined that the measures taken by the United States in self-defense were "both necessary and reasonable... in order to deter and prevent [future] acts of international terrorism" (Dunlap Jr. 2).
Ultimately, every political activity is driven by a desire to gain political power. According to this particular viewpoint, it is in the interests of governments to maintain and secure their own authority, which is of primary importance. In light of the fact that power can move rather quickly in the international system, the majority of constructivists place a strong dependence on a robust military to protect their positions against challengers inside the system. It is not uncommon for governments to respond to acts of state-sponsored terrorism with a military-based response. Many people believe that military strength is the solution for all issues, including challenges to national security, and that it should be used whenever possible. The attempt by a nation to take action against a non-state actor who has received funding and sponsorship from another state results in conflicts not just between the two state actors, but also between the non-state actor and the two state actors as a result of the action taken. The attitude a state will take in the face of a threat, on the other hand, is impacted by the amount of benefits it expects to get as a result of the threat. The implementation of some resolutions results in the realisation of absolute benefits, while the implementation of others results in the realisation of relative advantages. The types of accomplishments that a state wants to attain are determined by the identity of the state. A state's self-interested stance and belief that it is more important than any other actor will lead it to seek the biggest amount of benefits feasible in response to a crisis. Depending on the circumstances, one of two outcomes may be achieved: either a complete elimination of the terrorist threat and re-establishment of its power position, or a cooperative approach to the problem that seeks to benefit all parties involved and resolve the issue with the least amount of harm. Historically, according to Dunlap Jr. 1, “terrorism conducted by a nation-state is... considered a national security issue” and is dealt as such by the government.
When a state "responds too passively to a terroristic threat... the government loses its legitimacy," as Sandler puts it, "the legitimacy of the government is eroded," because the state has now fostered worry that it will be unable to provide the security of its own population. Additionally, if the state's response is seen unduly severe, it may be deemed to "break democratic ideals" (Sandler 264), leading to the state losing favour with the general public and ultimately in the state losing its legitimacy. Rather than the interaction between the state and non-state actors, classical realism places an emphasis on the relationship between the state and other actors. Many questions are raised concerning how a nation would respond to terrorist attacks, whether they are sponsored by a foreign government or committed by individuals. It will be necessary for the state under attack to address the state that is responsible for funding or harbouring such terrorist organisations, regardless of the response. Contrary to this, a state actor has the ability to respond to both non-state and state actors in the manner that it deems appropriate, based on how their respective roles have been created. Constructionism contends that dealing with offenders regardless of their state or non-state position is appropriate; realists contend that it is more appropriate to take a more diplomatic approach, such as imposing “an embargo on arm-related exports and sales” (US Department of State 85) or other government sanctions against the offenders themselves. In addition to the seven nations listed above as state sponsors of terrorism in various parts of the world, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria are also included on the list.
Interactions between state actors on a global scale are significantly influenced by the performance of other countries, the individuals they support, and the way they react. We are better equipped to comprehend how and why a nation behaves in the manner that it does in the face of state-sponsored terrorism when we apply these two paradigms to the situation. The use of realism in international relations is effective in classifying the activities of two countries; but, the use of constructivism is more effective in forecasting a nation's behaviour in reaction to the threat of state-sponsored terrorism.

The above  Management  Assignment has been solved by our  Management Assignment  Experts at onlineassignmentbank. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.