Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:49:40.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Precaution against terrorism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2010

By
Jessica Stern  and
Jonathan B. Wiener
Edited by
Paul Bracken ,
Ian Bremmer  and
David Gordon
Paul Bracken
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Ian Bremmer
Affiliation:
Eurasia Group, New York
David Gordon
Affiliation:
US Department of State
Get access

Summary

Terrorism poses a serious risk to health, safety and the environment. Using conventional methods such as bombs or aircraft, terrorism can cause dozens to thousands of human fatalities, spread toxic plumes of smoke, and trigger widespread fear and restrictions on civil liberties. Using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – chemical, biological or nuclear weapons – terrorism could inflict much greater harm, perhaps millions of deaths and irreparable ecological devastation. Managing the risk of terrorism has become the paramount concern of many governments. Yet the sources of terrorism are highly uncertain, very difficult to assess and manage, and intent on evading preventive measures.

Governments have many options for managing threats to national security. After several decades of pursuing deterrence and containment against the Soviet Union, the US won the Cold War, only to be stunned by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Concerned that deterrence and containment would not succeed against non-state actors willing to commit suicide attacks, and loath to repeat the mistake of 9/11 (perhaps next time involving WMD), the Bush administration adopted a new National Security Strategy in September 2002. The UK government took a similar stance. This new strategy calls for anticipatory attacks against potential enemies with uncertain capacities and intentions, even before their threat is imminent. Rather than wait for evidence of WMD, it shifts the burden of proof, obliging “rogue” states to show that they do not harbor WMD or terrorist cells, or else face the possibility of attack.

Type
Chapter
Information
Managing Strategic Surprise
Lessons from Risk Management and Risk Assessment
 , pp. 110 - 183
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

For useful discussions, see Wiener, J. B., “Precaution” in Brunée, J., Bodansky, D. and Hey, E. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of international environmental law, (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar
Sandin, P., “Dimensions of the precautionary principle,” Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, 5 (1999), 889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (eds.), Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999)Google Scholar
Wiener, J. B. and Rogers, M. D., “Comparing precaution in the US and Europe,” Journal of Risk Research, 5 (2002), 317–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S., “The precautionary principle in Germany – enabling government” in T. O'Riordan and Cameron, J. (eds.), Interpreting the precautionary principle (London: Cameron and May, 1994)Google Scholar
,European Environment Agency, Late lessons from early warnings (EEA, 2002).Google Scholar
Sanderson, H. and Peterson, S., “Power analysis as a reflexive scientific tool for interpretation and implementation of the precautionary principle in the European Union,” Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 8 (2001), 1–6.Google Scholar
Suskind, R., The one percent doctrine (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).Google Scholar
Gore, A., Earth in the balance (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992).Google Scholar
Runciman, D., “The precautionary principle,” London Review of Books, 26(7) (April 1, 2004)Google Scholar
Krugman, P., “Who's accountable?” New York Times, A27 (June 10, 2003)Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A., But is it true? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Lewis, A., “The feelings of a coup,” New York Times, A15, (March 31, 2001)Google Scholar
Jervis, R., “Understanding the Bush doctrine,” Political Science Quarterly, 118 (2003), 365–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, D. M., “International law and the pre-emptive use of force against Iraq,” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report RS21314 (April 11, 2003).Google Scholar
Walzer, M., Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1977), pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
Grimmett, R. F., “US use of pre-emptive military force,” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report RS21311 (April 11, 2003)Google Scholar
Feinstein, L. and Slaughter, A., “A duty to prevent,” Foreign Affairs, 83(1) (2004), 136–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, J., “Using force,” University of Chicago Law Review, 71 (2004), 729–97.Google Scholar
Posner, E. and Sykes, A., “Optimal war and jus ad bellum,” Georgetown Law Journal, 93 (2004), 993–1022.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., “The precautionary principle in economic analysis,” in O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.), Interpreting the precautionary principle (London: Cameron and May, 1994)Google Scholar
Graham, J. D.. and Wiener, J. B., Risk vs. risk: tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
Keeney, R. L. and Winterfeldt, D., “Appraising the precautionary principle – a decision analysis perspective,” Journal of Risk Research, 4 (2001), 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekay, M.et al., “Risk-based decision analysis in support of precautionary policies,” Journal of Risk Research, 5 (2002), 391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. B., “Environmental regulatory decision-making under uncertainty,” Research in Law and Economics, 20 (2002), 71–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. and Treich, N., “Decision making under uncertainty: the economics of the precautionary principle,” Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 27 (2003), 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrow, S., “Using risk-assessment, best-cost analysis, and real options to implement a precautionary principle,” Risk Analysis, 24 (2004), 727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. A., Catastrophe: risk and response (Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
Barrieu, P. and Sinclair-Dégagné, B., “On precautionary policies,” Management Science, 52 (2006), 1145–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C., “Irreversible and catastrophic,” Cornell L. Rev., 91 (2006), 841.Google Scholar
Malkin, M., In defense of internment (Regnery Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar
Feaver, P., “The fog of WMD,” Washington Post, A21 (January 28, 2004).Google Scholar
,National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 commission report: final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004).Google Scholar
Shane, S. and Sanger, D. E., “The intelligence critique: the report: Bush panel finds big flaws remain in US spy efforts,” New York Times, A1 (April 1, 2005).Google Scholar
Brom, S., “The war in Iraq: an intelligence failure,” Jaffe Center's Strategic Assessment, 6(3) (2003)Google Scholar
Stern, J., The ultimate terrorists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Jehl, D., “CIA review is critical of pre-war analysis,” New York Times, A18 (September 22, 2004).Google Scholar
Dana, D., “A behavioral economic defense of the precautionary principle,” Northwestern University Law Review, 97 (2003), 1315.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., The perception of risk (London: Earthscan, 2000)Google Scholar
Pillar, P., “Counterterrorism after Al Qaeda,” Washington Quarterly, 27(3) (2004), 101–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. and Kuran, T., “Availability cascades and risk regulation,” Stanford Law Review, 51 (1999), 683–768.Google Scholar
Andrews, R. N. L., Managing the environment, managing ourselves: a history of American environmental policy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, R., “Environmental legislation and the problem of collective action,” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 9 (1998), 9–28.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A., “Review of the book The 9/11 Report,” New York Times Book Review, 9 (August 29, 2004).Google Scholar
Chalk, P., West European terrorism and counter-terrorism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, J., “Dreaded risks and the control of biological weapons,” International Security, 27(3) (2002) 89–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, , “Perception of risk,” as cited in note 196; C. R. Sunstein, The laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Nieman, S., Evil in modern thought (Princeton University Press, 2002), pp. 284–85.Google Scholar
Miller, W. I., The anatomy of disgust (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 26.Google Scholar
Bentham, J., Principles of legislation (Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1830), xviii, section 17.Google Scholar
Wiener, J. B., “Better regulation in Europe,” Current Legal Problems, 59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., “Cognition and cost-benefit analysis” in Adler, M. and Posner, E. (eds.), Cost–benefit analysis (University of Chicago Press Journals, 2001)Google Scholar
Wiener, J. B., “Managing the iatrogenic risks of risk management,” Risk: Health Safety & Environment, 9 (1998), 49–82Google Scholar
Rascoff, S. J. and Revesz, R. L., “The biases of risk tradeoff analysis: towards parity in environmental and health-and-safety regulation,” University of Chicago Law Review, 69 (2002), 1763–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haimes, Y., “Risk of extreme events and the fallacy of expected value” in Yacov Haimes (ed.), Risk modeling, assessment and management (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998) pp. 297–345.Google Scholar
Zakaria, F., “How to change ugly regimes,” Newsweek, 31 (June 27, 2005).Google Scholar
Scheuer, M., Imperial hubris: why the west is losing the war on terror (Potomac Books, 2004)Google Scholar
Pape, R. A., Dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism (New York: Random House, 2005).Google Scholar
Wiener, , “Managing the iatrogenic risks of risk management,” as cited in note 211; J. Stern, “The protean enemy,” Foreign Affairs, 82(4) (2003), 27–40.Google Scholar
Tuchman, B. W., The march of folly: from Troy to Vietnam (New York: Ballantine Books, 1984).Google Scholar
Keeney, R., “Countering terrorism: the clash of values,” ORMS Today, 28(6) (2001).Google Scholar
Lakdawalla, D. and Zanjani, G., “Insurance, self-protection and the economics of terrorism,” J. Public Economics, 89 (2005) 1891–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, N. and Zeckhauser, R., “The ecology of terror defense,” J. Risk & Uncertainty, 26 (2003), 201–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clotfelter, C. T., “Private security and the public safety,” Journal of Urban Economics, 5 (1978) 388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C., Blowback: The costs and consequences of American empire, 2nd edn., (Owl Books, 2004)Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. P. and Sandler, T., “Too much of a good thing? The proactive response dilemma,” J. Conflict Resolution, 48 (2004), 657–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, J. B., “Precaution in a multirisk world” in Paustenbach, D. D. (ed.), Human and ecological risk assessment: theory and practice (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002).Google Scholar
Roberts, L.et al., “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey,” The Lancet, 364 (October 29, 2004), 1857–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, R., Against all enemies: inside America's war on terror (New York: The Free Press, 2004)Google Scholar
Fanon, F., The wretched of the earth (New York: Grove Press, 1961).Google Scholar
Buchanan, P. J., Where the right went wrong (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2004).Google Scholar
Bloom, M., Dying to kill: the allure of suicide terror (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Breyer, S. G., Breaking the vicious circle: toward effective risk regulation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Graham, J. D., “Decision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle,” Journal of Risk Research, 4 (2001), 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofstedt, R., “The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe,” Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 28 (2004), 237–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalter, D., “The influence of Department of Defense practices on corporate planning,” Management Technology, 115 (1964), 116.Google Scholar
Hammond, P., “A functional analysis of Defense Department decision-making in the McNamara administration,” American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaiswal, N. K., Military operations research: quantitative decision making (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothkopf, D. J., Running the world: the inside story of the National Security Council and the architects of American power (Washington, DC: Public Affairs, 2005).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×