How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns

by Audrey Kurth Cronin

own making and partly reflective of broader historical forces, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the nation-state to use force legitimately. The concept of civilian is imperfect and in need of updating because, as the nation-state evolves, its boundaries (both physical and political) are more and more difficult to discern. Whether or not one wears a uniform or receives a paycheck from a state does not give us as much to go on in identifying “civilians” as it once did, and therefore in clarifying the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the force that is used against them. We will resolve this issue only through agreement on the sources of legitimacy for the future state—the question that is, after all, at the core of the problem.81 Some have argued that the new state should draw its legitimacy from being “democratic,” for example. In response, some terrorist groups counter that, with universal suffrage at the heart of democracies, all citizens share responsibility for the actions of their governments and are legitimate targets of attack. This interpretation makes a mockery of the norm of the discriminate use of force—reflecting the confusing status of the twenty-first-century state. Likewise, what is the difference between a state and a nonstate actor? In a world with a proliferation of warlords, contractors, networks, and private security firms—or even nongovernmental organizations, web-based movements, regional networks, and global corporations—what is a non-state actor...