To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate? The controversy of talking to terrorists over the years and at the present time.

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Novak, Stephanie it_IT
dc.contributor.author Carnevali, Ambra <1991> it_IT
dc.date.accessioned 2018-02-17 it_IT
dc.date.accessioned 2018-06-22T08:43:07Z
dc.date.issued 2018-03-06 it_IT
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10579/12309
dc.description.abstract Over the years, the conventional wisdom on negotiations with terrorists has been holding that talks are wrong, morally unjustifiable, dangerous, and strategically counterproductive. The main arguments against negotiations are straightforward: talks grant a status to terrorist groups, conferring them legitimacy and rewarding them for their violence as a method to achieve their goals. In addition, compromises undermine the work of officials who tried to achieve peace and political change through democratic means. Most importantly, negotiations can destabilize a political system and set a dangerous precedent allowing terrorists to think that “violence pays”. Although statesmen are quick to publicly declare with firm and emotional statements that they will never talk to terrorists, yet they do, mostly using Back Channels talks, that is official negotiations conducted in secret. Furthermore, an increasing number of counterterrorism experts acknowledge that negotiations should be included in their set of strategies, especially when pursuing the transition of the terrorist group into a legitimate political party. The aim of this thesis is to shed some light on the issue while analyzing a wide array of intellectual resources by distinguishing pro and contra for each one of the arguments. With this goal in mind, two case studies will be discussed, namely the IRA case study and the Sgt. Bergdahl case study, both depicting successful negotiations when considering their objectives but greatly controversial. Taken together, this research shows that, despite the critics, negotiating with terrorists is a viable counterterrorism strategy, as war only is proving to be fairly ineffective. it_IT
dc.language.iso en it_IT
dc.publisher Università Ca' Foscari Venezia it_IT
dc.rights © Ambra Carnevali, 2018 it_IT
dc.title To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate? The controversy of talking to terrorists over the years and at the present time. it_IT
dc.title.alternative To Negotiate or not to Negotiate? The controversy of talking to terrorists over the years and at the present time. it_IT
dc.type Bachelor Thesis it_IT
dc.degree.name Relazioni internazionali comparate - international relations it_IT
dc.degree.level Laurea magistrale it_IT
dc.degree.grantor Scuola in Relazioni Internazionali it_IT
dc.description.academicyear 2016/2017, sessione straordinaria it_IT
dc.rights.accessrights closedAccess it_IT
dc.thesis.matricno 857823 it_IT
dc.subject.miur SPS/04 SCIENZA POLITICA it_IT
dc.description.note it_IT
dc.degree.discipline it_IT
dc.contributor.co-advisor it_IT
dc.date.embargoend 10000-01-01
dc.provenance.upload Ambra Carnevali (857823@stud.unive.it), 2018-02-17 it_IT
dc.provenance.plagiarycheck Stephanie Novak (stephanie.novak@unive.it), 2018-03-05 it_IT


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record