Introduction

Nearly every essay on the subject of terrorism makes an apologetic nod to the difficulties of defining the term. Despite frequent mentions of ‘state terrorism’ as a form of many types of terrorisms, relatively few works then go on to discuss state terror, and those that do treat it as independent of non-state terror, state-sponsored terror or counter-terrorist policy. This chapter in some sense is little different, in that it too addresses definitional considerations. It departs from other works, however, in important ways. It adopts a Weberian mode of definition: that is, the elements discussed that constitute what is meant by ‘counter-terrorism’ or ‘terrorism’ are included not because I claim to have reached any great truth or resolved a discussion that is centuries old, but rather because I am writing about liberal, democratic states’ response to what they perceive to be terrorist challenge. Thus, while I take Annamarie Oliverio's point well, that to have amassed a number of definitions and isolated common elements – as though truth were dependent on a majoritarian decision – distorts academic inquiry, I nevertheless find it helpful to describe the rules by which certain types of challenge become categorized. My contention is that once a challenge to a liberal, democratic state has been labelled as ‘terrorist’, certain responses follow. My purpose is to point out the associated risks.