11] Contemporary Global Concerns

1] Democracy

A] Major Global Trends and Debates

Samuel P. Huntington’s “waves of democratization” framework identifies historical surges in democracy. The “Third Wave” of democracy, beginning in the mid-1970s swept Southern Europe, Latin America, parts of Asia, and post-1989 Eastern Europe.

This was followed by what Larry Diamond and others call a “democratic recession” in the 2000s, with rising illiberal democracies.

Fareed Zakaria warned of regimes that hold elections but erode civil liberties and rule of law – “illiberal democracies” – noting that nearly half of all democracies fit this pattern.

Today, over one-third of humanity now lives under authoritarian rule, and 60 countries are classified as authoritarian regimes. This trend has sparked debate about a worldwide “democratic recession”.

One of the key debate is democracy vs. authoritarian development models. China’s rapid economic rise under one-party rule is often contrasted with India’s slower development, raising questions about governance efficacy.

Democracy promotion by West has been met with scepticism in the Global South. The developing countries, view it as neo-imperialist, especially when linked to military interventions (as seen in Iraq or Libya). Conversely, pro-democracy movements worldwide (from the Arab Spring to protests in Belarus or Myanmar) testify to a persistent global appeal of democratic ideals.

Then there is also debate on liberal vs. illiberal democracy. Ensure not just electoral democracy (procedural democracy) but also the protection of minority rights, rule of law etc. (Substantive democracy).

The world is witnessing a contest between democratic resilience and authoritarian resurgence, making the health of democracy a central global concern.

B] Institutions and Conventions

Unlike other issues, democracy lacks a single comprehensive global treaty or regulatory body, but it is upheld through various international norms and institutions.

1. The United Nations endorses democratic principles indirectly: Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) proclaims the right to take part in government and that the will of the people via periodic elections is the basis of authority.
2. The UN established a Democracy Fund (UNDEF) in 2005 to support democratization projects worldwide.
3. The UN Human Rights Council often links civil-political rights to democratic governance.

Apart from UN, there are also intergovernmental coalitions:

1. The Community of Democracies (formed in 2000) is a forum of democratic countries committed to supporting democratic norms. Its members include India, USA, UK, Japan, Canada, Italy etc.
2. Regional bodies also promote democracy in their charters – for example, the European Union requires democratic governance and human rights for member states. Similarly, the African Union has rejected in past the unconstitutional changes of government.

Then, there are other entities like NGOs and networks that advocate free elections and civil liberties across borders. (e.g. Freedom House, International IDEA, National Endowment for Democracy, World Movement for Democracy etc.)

Thus, while there is no treaty obligating democracy, international law has evolved to where democracy is seen as a legitimate aspiration for all peoples and its subversion often faces diplomatic backlash.

C] Case Studies and Empirical Examples

1] Third Wave of Democracy

The 1990s saw countries like Spain (after Franco) and South Korea (after military rule) successfully transition to stable democracies, guided by pacts and gradual reforms. In Eastern Europe, the collapse of USSR led to establishment of democracy in countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and later even Russia. Many of these states joined the EU/NATO, solidifying democratic institutions.

2] Arab Spring (2011)

A wave of pro-democracy uprisings swept the Arab world. In Tunisia, mass protests ended dictatorship and led to a new constitution and free elections (often cited as the sole success story, though even Tunisia later faced democratic erosion in 2021–23).

Elsewhere, outcomes were mixed or negative: Egypt briefly elected a government but then reverted to military-backed rule; Libya and Syria descended into chaos and conflict, highlighting the perils when state institutions are weak.

The Arab Spring exemplifies both the universal demand for democratic dignity and the formidable obstacles in its realization.

3] Democratic Backsliding

Several countries have experienced elected leaders undermining democracy from within. In Turkey, President Erdoğan and in Hungary, PM Orbán have curtailed media freedom and checks and balances, leading analysts to label them illiberal democracies.

Venezuela under Chávez/Maduro eroded democratic institutions, resulting in authoritarian rule despite earlier elections.

4] Small-State Resilience

Some smaller states provide positive examples. Ghana and Senegal in Africa have maintained regular transitions of power via elections, bucking a trend of instability. Taiwan and South Korea evolved into vibrant democracies in Asia. Costa Rica in Latin America abolished its military and invested in strong civil institutions, remaining a stable democracy in a region that once had many dictatorships.

These cases show that culture or geography need not be barriers to democracy if institutions and leadership align with democratic norms.

5] Bangladesh: Democratic Transition and Turmoil

In mid-2024, Bangladesh experienced a significant political upheaval. There were widespread student-led protests against government job quotas policy. It quickly escalated into a nationwide movement demanding democratic reforms. The unrest culminated in the resignation and exile of long-serving Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in August 2024.

Subsequently, an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus was established to restore democratic processes. However, the interim administration has faced criticism for delaying elections. Thus, political landscape remains tense, and the future of Bangladesh’s democracy remains uncertain.

6] Nepal: Ongoing Political Instability and Calls for Monarchy Restoration

The monarchy was abolished in Nepal in 2008 and Parliament was reinstated. However, since then Nepal’s political scene has been marked by continued instability, with frequent changes in government.

Thus, in March 2025, significant pro-monarchy protests erupted in Kathmandu, with demonstrators calling for the restoration of the constitutional monarchy and the country’s status as a Hindu state.

This scenario resonates with Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis in Political Order in Changing Societies, where he posits that ‘rapid political mobilization without the development of robust institutions can lead to political instability.’ Huntington argues that the absence of strong political institutions to channel and manage participation often results in disorder, suggesting that order and institutionalization are prerequisites for a successful democracy.

Thus, Nepal’s experience illustrates that the mere adoption of democratic processes, like elections, is insufficient. Without the concurrent development of society, democracies remain vulnerable to backsliding and public disillusionment.

7] Other Developments

In Myanmar, a decade of quasi-democracy ended with a coup in 2021, reversing gains and drawing international condemnation.

Sudan saw a hopeful civilian uprising in 2019 oust a long-time dictator, but a 2021 coup and a 2023 internal conflict dashed hopes for democratization, illustrating the fragility of transitions.

Conversely, there have been democratic breakthroughs: Malaysian elections in 2018 ended one-party dominance via peaceful transition; Zambia (2021) and Czechia (2023) saw incumbents accept opposition victories, reinforcing norms of respect for the vote.

D] Contemporary Challenges

Democracy faces numerous challenges in contemporary times:

1. The spread of misinformation (especially via social media) and foreign interference in elections have eroded informed consent of the governed.
2. In many young democracies, weak institutions – judiciaries, election commissions, rule of law – struggle against patronage and corruption. This can lead to democratic fatigue or nostalgia for “strong” rulers.
3. A critical North-South debate is about the sequence of liberalization. Should rule of law and state capacity come before mass political competition? Critics like Zakaria argue democracy without liberal foundations can produce unstable or illiberal outcomes. (e.g. Nepal example as illustrated above)
4. Another challenge is majoritarianism vs minority rights. Democratically elected regimes have, in cases like Sri Lanka or Hungary, not protected the minority rights. This raises questions about safeguard pluralism even if the system is democratic.
5. External democracy promotion faces criticism. Interventions or sanctions in the name of democracy can be seen as violating sovereignty or is applied selectively.
6. In recent past, authoritarian powers have also become bolder in promoting their governance model as an alternative – China touts one-party efficiency and Russia openly undermines democratic expansion in its neighbourhood.

All these issues contribute to what many term a crisis of democracy. Critics of democracy also point to its inefficiencies (policy gridlock in divided societies) and susceptibility to demagoguery.

On the other hand, it is also argued that the remedy for flaws in democracy is more democracy – greater transparency, civic education, inclusive dialogue, and institutional reforms – rather than a turn to authoritarianism. As Winston Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

E] Analysis of India

India holds a unique place as a post-colonial state that embraced democracy from independence, maintaining an unbroken record of electoral democracy (barring a brief Emergency in 1975–77). Domestically, India stands as a tall example of how democracy can thrive in a developing, highly diverse society. India boasts regular elections, vibrant media, and an active civil society.

While India supports democracy in developing countries, India’s foreign policy adheres to sovereignty and non-interference. It does not overtly evangelize democracy or sanction countries for being undemocratic. Recently, India has even shown willingness to work even with Taliban government, though official endorsement has not yet come.

India is a founding member of the Community of Democracies and has contributed to the UN Democracy Fund.

However, it is also true that India is also cognizant of democracy’s challenges, particularly in a traditional society. Indian leaders have often highlighted that political freedoms must be complemented by socio-economic rights. In recent years, India has faced debates on the quality of its democracy i.e. issues of religious harmony, press freedom etc. The Indian government’s stance has been that its democracy remains robust and that internal issues will be resolved through its constitutional processes.

India is a proud democratic nation and unhesitatingly promotes itself as ‘Mother of Democracy’.

2] Human Rights

A] Genocide and International Response

In the Rwandan Genocide (1994), about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in 100 days. It was a tragic case of global inaction – UN peacekeepers were present but not mandated to stop the killing, and major powers hesitated to intervene.

A contrast came in Bosnia where after atrocities including the Srebrenica massacre (1995) by Bosnian Serb forces, NATO intervened militarily and the responsible leaders were eventually convicted of genocide.

These cases illustrate both the horror of mass human rights violations and the necessity of international intervention.

B] Human Rights and the War on Terror

After 9/11, the US-led War on Terror raised contentious human rights questions. In Guantánamo Bay, the US detained hundreds of terror suspects without trial. There were also reports of torture for interrogation. This drew global condemnation for violating the Torture Convention.

This period saw vigorous debate on whether rights could be curtailed for security. This led to US Supreme Court rulings affirming detainees’ legal rights.

Another example is drone strikes against terrorist targets (in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) which have caused civilian casualties, prompting questions about the right to life and due process for targets.

The Patriot Act in the US and surveillance expansions in UK/France, etc., pitted national security against privacy and free expression rights.

The global community has generally maintained that counterterrorism must not serve as an excuse to trample fundamental rights.

C] Authoritarian Crackdowns

In recent years, some regimes have carried out severe crackdowns. For example, In China’s Xinjiang region, an estimated 1 million Uighur and other Turkic Muslims have been detained in “re-education” camps since 2017. There are also reports of forced labour, cultural erasure, and even forced sterilization.

China has at times denied or defended these anti-extremism measures and has even rallied some Global South support. In a 2022 assessment by the UN Human Rights Office, the United Nations (UN) stated that China’s policies and actions in the Xinjiang region may constitute crimes against humanity, though it did not use the term genocide.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia faced global outrage after the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate. However, the economic interests of the west tempered its human rights stance with  many Western states protesting only verbally).

Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingya (2017 onward) is another case of violation of human rights. The Myanmar forces have burned villages and there is widespread killing and rape. This has resulted in over 700,000 refugees fleeing to Bangladesh. The UN fact-finding mission termed it “genocidal intent”, but in the Security Council, China and Russia blocked decisive action.

These incidents show how human rights abuses by states often meet a mix of limited international action. While weaker states receive wide criticism and even intervention at times, the strong states are given similar treatment, although their crimes may be similar.

There are also success stories. South Africa peacefully transitioned from apartheid in 1994 to a multiracial democracy under international human rights pressure. We observe similar cases in Latin America.

D] LGBTQ Rights

In terms of rights expansion, LGBTQ+ rights have seen global progress: many countries (including in Global South, like India’s 2018 decriminalization of homosexuality and Taiwan’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2019) have advanced equality. This has been driven by domestic activism as well as global norms of non-discrimination.

E] Humanitarian Crises and Refugees

The Syrian civil war (2011–present) exemplifies a multi-faceted human rights catastrophe: extensive war crimes by various parties, and the world’s largest refugee displacement (over 6.8 million Syrians fled, straining the international refugee regime).

The Syrian civil war began with the Syrian Revolution in March 2011 when popular discontent with the Ba’athist regime triggered pro-democracy rallies across Syria, as part of the wider Arab Spring protests. The regime responded with lethal force, sparking a civil war that culminated in the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024. All revolutionary factions united into the Syrian caretaker government by 12 March 2025.

In contrast, Europe’s handling of Ukrainian refugees (2022) is comparatively welcoming. It reveals disparities in response and racial or geopolitical biases in humanitarianism.

F] Challenges and Criticisms

Above examples, illustrate that, despite the elaborate human rights architecture, several challenges impede its effectiveness. We can put these challenges under following categories.

1] Enforcement and Sovereignty

The international system is state-centric, so enforcement of human rights norms largely depends on state consent. Authoritarian governments often invoke sovereignty to deflect criticism, claiming human rights are an internal matter.

Since there is no world government to compel compliance; at best there are sanctions or naming-and-shaming, which may not sway hardened violators (e.g. North Korea’s government continues severe repression despite being one of the most condemned and sanctioned).

When enforcement is attempted via interventions, it can be controversial. For example, the NATO intervention in Libya (2011) to stop impending mass atrocities was initially humanitarian. However, NATO’s extended campaign to topple Gaddafi exceeded the UN mandate. The example is now cited to oppose R2P(responsibility to protect) actions. This trust deficit stymied responses to Syria and Myanmar.

2] Selectivity and Double Standards

Powerful countries are seen as applying human rights pressure only to rivals or weaker states. For instance, Western states strongly criticize Venezuela or Iran, but are quieter on Saudi Arabia or Egypt (strategic allies).

The US is often called out for its own issues (police brutality, racial injustice, Guantánamo detentions). China highlights U.S. gun violence and poverty in annual reports to rebut U.S. critiques. Such tit-for-tat erodes the universality by politicizing the issues of human rights violation.

The politicization is also evident in UN bodies. The Human Rights Council has seen resolutions on Israel every session, while some egregious situations get less attention due to politicking. Additionally, countries with poor records often sit on the Council, drawing criticism.

3] Cultural Relativism vs Universality

This remains a philosophical and practical challenge in implementation of human rights. It’s argued that liberal individual rights conflict with societal values – for example, claims that “Asian values” prioritize community and development over individual political freedoms.

While the Vienna World Conference in 1993 asserted that human rights are universal, it also said they should be considered in context. The challenge is ensuring respect for culture and sovereignty while not excusing oppression disguised as cultural.

4] Socio Economic Rights

This present another challenge. Despite accepting their importance in theory, many developing states do not have means to enforce this rights. On the other hand, rich countries are reluctant to provide developmental aid or technology transfer.

5] Non State Actors

Human rights law primarily binds states, but what about armed non-state groups (rebels, terrorists) that execute civilians? The existing international political infrastructure does not address these issues.

6] Digital Tech

Further, digital tech challenges include mass surveillance, facial recognition, AI-driven bias, online hate speech etc. Applying old rights i.e. privacy, free expression, in the digital realm is a moving target. The role of private tech companies in content moderation can affect freedom of expression globally without clear regulation.

3] Environment

A] Theoretical Frameworks

Environmental issues in global politics are framed by concepts of the global commons, sustainability, and justice. A foundational idea is “Sustainable Development”, popularized by the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report.

It defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Classic works like Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) provide a theoretical lens on how common-pool resources (like air, oceans) get overused when individuals act in self-interest. This points to the need for collective management or regulation.

In the climate context, the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) is a key concept. All states are responsible for addressing global environmental destruction, but not equally – responsibilities vary by historical emissions and capabilities. This embodies climate justice theory, championed by Global South and activists. They argue that developed countries (Global North) bear the main blame for greenhouse gases. Thus, they should take lead in cutting emissions and finance adaptation in poorer countries.

Environmental justice more broadly links environment to social justice, highlighting how environmental burdens (pollution, disasters) often unfairly hit marginalized communities (e.g. Indigenous groups, or, globally, poor nations facing climate harms).

Another relevant concept is the Anthropocene – proposed by scientists like Paul Crutzen – positing that Earth has entered a new geological epoch defined by human impact. This has profound theoretical implications: it challenges the humans and nature binary discussion,  and urges rethinking sovereignty and development through a planetary lens.

B] Major Global Trends and Debates

The global environment has become one of the most urgent concerns of the 21st century. Climate change suggests planet continues to warm due to greenhouse gas emissions. As per the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) the Earth has already warmed ~1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, leading to more frequent extreme weather. The year 2023 was confirmed as the hottest year ever recorded, at about 1.45°C above the pre-industrial average.

Another trend is biodiversity loss – scientists warn of a sixth mass extinction underway, with species disappearing at an alarming rate due to habitat loss, pollution, and climate. Environmental concerns also include deforestation, ocean degradation and freshwater scarcity.

1] Climate Justice

Developing nations argue they should not be asked to curb growth in the same way as rich nations. Rich countries built their prosperity on high emissions. They demand that wealthy countries take the lead in cutting emissions and providing finance/technology assistance to poorer ones, echoing the CBDR principle.

For instance, at climate summits, the Africa Group or Small Island Developing States (SIDS) often point out that they contribute minimally to emissions but face existential threats.

2] Strategies

There’s also a debate on strategies for climate change mitigation. Poorer countries highlight adaptation as urgent – they need infrastructure to cope with climate effects already happening. However, most climate effort focus on mitigation (cutting emissions at source). While mitigation has global benefits, adaptation is localized (hence less funded by profit-seeking investors).

Technology transfer is yet another issue: developing nations seek affordable access to green tech (solar, wind, battery, etc.). However, intellectual property and costs are still barriers.

The emerging debate on geoengineering – large-scale interventions like solar radiation management or carbon dioxide removal – is also controversial. It poses unknown risks. Similarly, nuclear energy’s role is debated: it’s low-carbon but raises safety and waste concerns; some countries (China, India, UK) are investing in new reactors or small modular reactors, while others (Germany) are phasing out nuclear entirely.

C] Institutions and Conventions

* [We would recommend banking on your studies of environment subject for this topic. Trying to cover the topic here would not only be repetitive, but would also be very lengthy and not as comprehensive as the environment book would cover. However, don’t take this as an excuse not to study the topic. UPSC have asked questions on COP summits, UNFCCC etc.]

4] Gender Justice

A] Theoretical Frameworks

The concept of gender justice draws on feminist theory and the understanding of gender as a social construct.

Liberal feminism advocates for equal rights and opportunities within existing structures (e.g. suffrage, legal equality).

Radical feminism goes further to critique patriarchy as a system of domination, emphasizing issues like bodily autonomy and violence against women.

Marxist and socialist feminism link gender oppression to class and capitalism, highlighting how women’s labour (paid and unpaid) is exploited.

Intersectional feminism, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is a critical framework. It suggests that women experience injustice in varying configurations and degrees of intensity based on intersections with race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. This is especially relevant in a global context – for example, the experiences of a poor rural woman of colour differ from a wealthy urban white woman.

Postcolonial and Global South feminists (like Chandra Talpade Mohanty) critique “Western feminism”. Mohanty’s work “Under Western Eyes” highlights how Western feminists homogenized the “Third World woman” as helpless victims, instead of recognizing diverse realities and resistance. This led to frameworks of transnational feminism, which aim to build solidarity across borders without erasing differences, emphasizing a bottom-up approach to women’s rights.

In international relations, feminist IR theory (scholars like J. Ann Tickner, Cynthia Enloe) has illuminated how global politics is gendered. Enloe’s phrase “the personal is international” shows how seemingly personal or trivial roles (diplomat’s wives, military brothels, domestic workers) are integral to international politics.

Gender mainstreaming is a policy framework which calls for assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action (legislation, programs). This stems from recognizing that policies not explicitly addressing gender often end up perpetuating inequalities.

In terms of justice theories, concepts like care economy (highlighted by feminist economists) challenge what is valued in economics. They argue unpaid care work (disproportionately done by women) should be recognized and rewarded.

B] Major Global Trends and Debates

The quest for gender justice has seen both progress and challenges worldwide.

One major trend is the improvement in women’s legal rights and education globally. However, the economic and political empowerment gaps remain large. Globally women hold about 26% of parliamentary seats – a record high, yet far from parity. In the corporate world, only a small fraction of top CEOs are women (the “glass ceiling” persists).

A significant trend is increasing labour force participation and economic inclusion of women. Yet women still do the majority of unpaid care work – cooking, cleaning, child-rearing. The pandemic notably exacerbated this burden, causing a “she-cession” as women left the workforce at higher rates to care for family. The global gender pay gap remains. Women earn on average 77% of what men earn, per UN analysis.

Gender-based violence remains a global scourge and key focus of debates. Despite more awareness and laws, this form of violence persists. The #MeToo movement that erupted in 2017 went global, highlighting sexual harassment and assault across industries and countries.

The debate extends to peace and security: UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (2000) recognized that women should be more included in peace processes and that conflict affects women uniquely (e.g. sexual violence as a weapon of war). Since then, more women are at negotiation tables and as peacekeepers. For example in 2007, India deployed the first-ever all-female Formed Police Unit (FPU) to Liberia, a move that not only enhanced local security but also empowered Liberian women to participate more actively in their nation’s security sectors.

Lastly, technology and gender is an emerging trend: the digital divide – women are about 12% less likely than men to use the internet worldwide. Then, issues like online harassment targeting women (from revenge porn to trolling female journalists) present new challenges.

In 2010, the UN created a dedicated agency, UN Women (the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women), merging four previous smaller entities. UN Women supports intergovernmental processes, and runs programs on economic empowerment, leadership, ending violence, humanitarian action, etc. It also drives campaigns such as HeForShe, which engages men and boys for gender equality.

C] Case Studies and Examples

1] Nordic Countries – De facto Gender Equality Models

Nations like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland are often cited as leading examples in gender equality. Iceland has topped the Global Gender Gap Index for over a decade. These countries have near equal educational attainment and health outcomes for men and women, and small gaps in economic and political participation.

2] Rwanda – Women in Politics

After the 1994 genocide, Rwanda undertook to include women in rebuilding the nation. Through a constitutional quota and political will, Rwanda achieved the world’s first female parliamentary majority. As of recent years, women hold 61% of seats in the lower house of Parliament. This is often showcased as a positive experiment. The laws passed have addressed issues like gender-based violence, progressive land inheritance laws, as well as social policies on health and education.

The inclusion of women at such high levels is an important case of rapid shift from a traditionally patriarchal society. It stemmed partly from necessity (so many men were killed or jailed after the genocide) and partly from deliberate policy.

3] Women’s Rights in the Middle East – Mixed Picture

Saudi Arabia has seen some notable changes recently under its modernization drive. Women were granted the right to drive in 2018, and the guardianship system was slightly loosened (e.g. women can now get passports and travel abroad without a male guardian’s permission as of 2019).

However, critics note many rights activists remain jailed or silenced, and male guardianship still exists in some forms (like marriage approval).

Iran offers another case: Iranian women are highly educated (over 60% of university entrants are female) and active in many professions, but face legal discrimination (e.g. need male permission for passports, compulsory hijab laws).

Gender Violence and Law – India’s Nirbhaya Case

The fatal gang rape of Jyoti Singh (dubbed “Nirbhaya”) in Delhi, December 2012, was a watershed moment in India. The horrific nature of the crime sparked massive nationwide protests led by youth and women. In response, the government fast-tracked new legislation that broadened the definition of rape, enhanced penalties, created new offenses (stalking, acid attacks), and mandated faster trials in rape cases. It also led to establishment of a dedicated fund (“Nirbhaya Fund”) for women’s safety initiatives.

This case is significant as an example of civil society forcing the state’s hand to reform.

4] Reproductive Rights – Global Divergence

The right to access contraception and abortion is a key part of gender justice. About 50 countries have liberalized abortion laws in the past 25 years. Yet the US saw a reversal: the 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent (which had federally protected abortion rights) was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, leading to abortion bans or severe restrictions in about half of US states.

5] Terrorism

A] Theoretical Frameworks

Terrorism is generally defined as ‘the deliberate use of violence to instil fear and achieve political or ideological objectives.’ However, in theory and practice it remains a contested concept. Scholars have long debated its causes and characteristics.

A fundamental issue is defining terrorism. The adage “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” reflects how actors are labelled, can depend on perspective. Nonetheless, terrorism is generally characterized by

1. Asymmetry (weak actors attacking stronger ones via unconventional means),
2. Symbolism (attacks often chosen for shock value or to send a message), and
3. Intention to terrorize beyond the immediate victims.

Terrorism is called as asymmetrical war. Terrorism is a weapon of weak. Those who cannot prevail over the opponent will go for guerilla war, to compensate the greater strength of enemy. The strategy of terrorism include war of attrition i.e. protracted struggle to weaken the power of the enemy. The distinguishing feature of terrorism is propaganda and highly publicized atrocities. To intimidate enemy and to mobilize the popular support.

There are two interpretations of terrorism

1. Conventional interpretation – attack on civilized humanitarian values. Threat to humanity.
2. Radical view – They view terrorism as an attempt to advance justice. It is an attempt to counter bigger violence.

Thus, terrorism remains a highly contested concept.

1] Four Waves of Modern Terrorism

David C. Rapoport gives “Four Waves of Modern Terrorism” model. He describes modern terrorism in four waves:

1. The anarchist wave (1880s-1920s),
2. Anti-colonial wave (1920s-60s),
3. Left-wing/Marxist wave (1960s-90s), and
4. Religious wave (1979-present)

2] Types of Terrorisms

1. Insurrectionary terrorism – To overthrow the state e.g. Left Wing terrorism.
2. Nationalist terrorism – To overthrow foreign occupation.
3. Global terrorism – To weaken US hegemony (ISIS, Al Qaeda). The aim is to inflict damage or humiliation on global power, to change the global civilizational values. (Clash of civilizations).

3] Old vs New Terrorism

Earlier terrorism was secular. Terrorists fought for nationalism, to end capitalism or exploitation etc. New terrorism is religious terrorism. Majority of terrorist organizations have religious character. Religion itself has become an ideology.

1. Old terrorism was selective, pragmatic political strategy. New terrorism is a sacred duty.
2. Old terrorism was satisfied with limited changes or partial accommodation of demands.  New terrorism has become ‘total war’. It is not just political change, it is the change of society, moral values, way of life.
3. Old terrorism was institutionalized, there was military style, command and control. New terrorism is not an institution, rather and idea. Al Qaeda or ISIS is not an organization, it is an ideology. Hence it is diffused, leaderless, amorphous, connected to the cells. ISIS and AL Qaeda represent leaderless Jihad.
4. Since it is not an institution and an ideology, it is not enough to end the organization and the leader. It gives rise to foot soldiers.  Hence it is difficult to manage. Thus the new terrorism is more destructive, globalization helped in making it global.

However it is also believed that the threat is overstated. Terrorism is still confined to certain countries. Jihadis are not a cohesive entity. Jihadis are turning into motley groupings. The concern is changing from ideological to economic. The so called global character is hardly intrinsic. The number of causalities are smaller in comparison to regular warfare. Clash of civilizations is the construct of USA. The aim is to keep western world united and controlled by USA after the end of communism. Terrorist campaigns have hardly been successful. In most of the situations, it has provoked popular hostility.

However, there is a fear that terrorists can acquire weapons of mass destruction. There are also new tactics like Lone Wolf attacks, inspired by religion and are seen as martyrdom.

B] Major Global Trends and Debates

1] Transnational Jihadism

The late 1990s–2000s saw the rise of Islamist extremist networks like Al-Qaeda that operated transnationally. This culminated in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, which killed nearly 3,000 people. The subsequent “Global War on Terror” led by the US and allies toppled regimes and pursued Al-Qaeda across continents.

The 2010s then saw the shocking emergence of ISIS (Islamic State), which at its 2014-2015 peak controlled large swathes of Iraq and Syria. ISIS’s territorial defeat by 2019 was a major turning point. Yet, it morphed back into an insurgency and inspired franchises (like ISIS-K in Afghanistan, or affiliates in the Sahel and Southeast Asia).

2] Localization and New Hotspots

The Middle East and South Asia long were epicentres (Af-Pak region harbouring Al-Qaeda and Taliban, Iraq and Syria with ISIS, etc.) However, the epicentre of terrorism has been shifting towards Africa in recent years. As of 2023, the Sahel region saw a huge surge in jihadist terrorism. Over half of global terrorism deaths in 2023 occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially the central Sahel. This trend corresponds with state fragility and conflict. Civil conflicts in these areas allow militants to exploit local grievances.

3] Decline in Large-Scale 9/11-type Attacks vs Rise of Smaller Attacks

Post-9/11, massive security measures and counter-terror finance efforts have likely prevented many big plots in the West. Instead, jihadist terrorism shifted to lone-actor or small cell attacks. These are harder to predict since they might not involve a detectable network.

Overall, fatalities from terrorism in Western countries remain a tiny fraction of those in conflict regions, but each attack has outsized psychological and political impact.

4] Technological Changes

Terrorists have adapted new tech – widespread internet use allows propaganda, recruitment, and even cyber planning. Lone actors often self-radicalize online via echo chambers. Encrypted messaging apps (WhatsApp, Telegram etc.) make surveillance harder. Drones have been used by terror groups. There’s concern about emerging tech like AI-generated deepfakes or cryptocurrencies enabling terror financing beyond regulatory reach.

On the flip side, counter-terrorism also uses advanced tech: biometric databases, AI to scan web chatter, drone strikes for targeted killing.

5] State Sponsorship and Proxy Wars

A continuing trend is some states covertly supporting terror groups for strategic aims e.g. Pakistan backing anti-India terrorists, Iran supporting Hezbollah etc. This muddies global efforts, because as long as some state finds a group useful, it gets sanctuary or resources.

Debates continue at UN about distinguishing terrorism from “legitimate resistance” (particularly regarding Israel-Palestine – Hamas is deemed terrorist by West/Israel, but some states consider them a resistance movement; same with groups like Hezbollah). This political debate has prevented a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism from being finalized at the UN for decades.

C] Strategies to Deal with Terrorism

1. Realist approach – since they are threat to national security, hence should be countered with all means. No regard for civil liberties or rights.
2. Liberals – Liberals face the dilemma how to counter fundamentalist ideologies without infringement of liberal values themselves. If they accommodate fundamentalists, it will create protest movement. If they do not accommodate, it will counter their own values.
3. Critical school – They suggest to distinguish between wholesale and retail terrorism e.g. Chomsky accused USA for wholesale terrorism and classifies non state actors as retail terrorism.
4. Social constructivists – For them,  we have to reject the stereotype. When we keep on branding certain groups as terrorists, we are overlooking many other actors who are also terrorists. Branding some as terrorists allow others to legitimize their terrorism.

Among the counter terrorism strategies following ideas are proposed

1. Strengthen the state security.
2. Counterterrorism theory suggest military repression. However, the deterrence is tricky since many terrorists are willing to die. Thus, classical deterrence by punishment often fails.
3. Counter-insurgency theories emphasize winning hearts and minds to deny terrorists support.
4. Political bargain: However, it may not work against the fundamentalists because they want to create the new order rather than political accommodation.

It is suggested that excessive force is counterproductive. Terrorism achieves its ends not by the violent attacks but by communicating the legitimacy. When govt. becomes more repressive, sympathy turns towards the terrorists. The strategy of terrorists itself is to drain govt. in the cycle of repression. Once govt. slips into authoritarianism, it becomes more convincing to legitimize their own action.

Hence it is suggested that terrorism cannot be tackled only by robust state security approach. There is need to fight war at two levels. 1) War of position.  2) War of movement. War of position will require the use of soft power. In the war of terrorism, state need to gain moral high ground. Hence state needs to appear more sensitive to human rights, protection of freedom and development.

Govt. of India has offered 5 point for formula to counter terrorism

1. Exchange of timely and actionable intelligence.
2. Prevention of misuse of modern communication systems.
3. Building capacities to increase border controls.
4. Sharing the information on movement of persons.
5. Designation of counter-terror focal points for effective response.

India has also proposed CCIT (Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism)  

1. Accept the universal definition of terrorism to be adopted in the domestic laws. (It means no differentiation in good and bad terrorists).
2. Ban all terrorist groups and shut down all terrorist camps irrespective of the country.
3. Prosecution of all terrorists under special anti-terror laws.
4. Mandatory extradition of terrorists involved in cross border terrorism.

The convention has been under negotiation by the UNGA from 1996. However, consensus has not yet been reached for the adoption of the convention. USA suggests to exclude the acts committed by its armed forces without the mandate of UN. OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) countries demand to exclude national liberation movements.

Former secretary general Kofi Annan suggested the strategy of five Ds while dealing with terrorism

1. Dissuade the terrorist groups to resort to terrorism.
   1. Deny means to carry attacks.
   1. Deter states from supporting such groups.
   1. Develop capacity of the states to prevent terrorism.
   1. Defend human rights.

According to him, terrorism and human rights are not conflicting rather mutually reinforcing. Any strategy to fight terrorism has to be grounded in:

1. Rule of law
2. Victim centric
3. Reduce the appeal of terrorists. 
4. Civil society participation against propaganda war. 
5. Deal with the root causes like poverty. 
6. Cooperation among the nations. 
7. Condemn terrorism in all forms, whomsoever, whatsoever, wherever. 
8. Implement international conventions. 
9. Global solidarity will weaken the temptation to use terrorist tactics.

There is big question mark on future of human civilization because terrorism has become catastrophic and there is a fear of non-state actors acquiring even the weapons of mass destructions.

However, civilization can win over the most violent and animal instincts of human race, subject to the condition we are determined to save the humanity and fight against terrorism. We have to reject terrorism in any form, anywhere. Humanity have no option but to prevail over terrorism. It is a time to relook over Comprehensive Convention proposed by India.

6] Nuclear Proliferation

* [ Please refer Topic 7 – Changing International Political Order -> Subtopics 6 & 7 i.e.  The Nuclear Question and Global Nuclear Security Architecture.]