Projevy současného terorismu (Analýza jednoduchého kauzálního modelu)
Contemporary Terrorism Manifestations (Simple Causal Model Analysis)
The state policy [has] to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, [has] to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and [has] to make terrorism a crime against the people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.
1 THE COPENHAGEN SCHOOL THEORY
By the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s, the mostly bi-polar system of international relations dramatically changed to the unipolar one with the U.S. as the only global power. That substantial change initiated both the expansion and the transformation in area of the Security Studies. The new, complex perception of security has enlarged the traditional framework of hard (military – political) security, and embodied new economic, societal and environmental sectors of the soft (non-military) security.
One of the think tanks participating in this transformation of Security Studies was the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI), where the so-called “Copenhagen School” had been established. Members of that think-tank – Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde – elaborated a new theoretical concept of security in their writing Security: A New Framework for Analysis, edited in 1998. The writing examined in details all security sectors inclusive of those newly identified, and “rejected the traditionalists’ case for restricting security to one sector.”
The second significant benefit of the Copenhagen School Project was the expansion of the term security by implementing the new notion “securitization”. The distinctiveness of the securitization approach rests in broader perception of security. While traditionally, the term security is contemplated in light of its status, securitization is considered a process – “a more extreme version of politicization.”
In theory, any public issue can be located on the spectrum ranging from non-politicized (meaning the state does not deal with it, and it is not in any other way made an issue of public debate and decision), through politicized (meaning the issue is part of public policy, requiring governmental decision and resource allocation) to securitized (meaning the issue is presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedures).
The significance of this approach consists in the possibility ”to evaluate whether one finds it good or bad to securitize a certain issue … and … to ask whether it is a good idea to make this issue a security issue meaning to transfer it to the agenda of panic politics, or whether it is better handled within normal politics.”
Securitization is essentially an intersubjective process. The sense of threat, vulnerability, and (in)security are socially constructed rather than objectively present or absent … Paranoia (the securitization of nonexistent threats) and complacency (the non-securitization of apparent threats) are both possible.
Partial implication I.
Understandig this Copenhagen School's academic approach of the 1990’s through „the eyes“ and practical experience of European citizens of the 2010’s, it is possible to identify many analogies between Buzan’s theory and the Europe’s “(un)practical” solutions of the rampant migration wave and especially one of its direct consequences – a series of terrorist attacks in Western Europe.
2 THE HUMAN SECURITY STORY
Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, in parallel with the transformation of Security Studies, the idea of “Human Security” has gradually grown under the UN umbrella, even if the notion of human security has been latently used since the creation of the United Nations in 1945. The beginning of a serious research and development of human security is therefore dated in the early 1990’s, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released its „1994 Human Development Report” whose one whole chapter (out of five) was dedicated to and focused on the analysis of human security as a new security paradigm.
Moreover, the UN Human Security Concept, unlike security concepts of modern states (which are basicly focused on defending borders from external military threats) is concerned with the security of individuals. The founders of the United Nations had always given equal importance to people's security and to territorial security.
The battle of peace has to be fought on two fronts. The first is the security front where victory spells freedom from fear. The second is the economic and social front where victory means freedom from want. Only victory on both fronts can assure the world of an enduring peace.
In the area of particular threats to human security, the Human Development Report 1994 provided a detailed layout of following seven new security categories (sectors) - economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security; however, without any closer analysis of a particular threat. In retrospect, a very visionary part of the report was dedicated to the identification of following six emerging threats to human security for the 21st century that “will arise more from the actions of millions of people than from aggression by a few nations”:
- Unchecked population growth;
- Disparities in economic opportunities;
- Excessive international migration;
- Environmental degradation;
- Drug production and trafficking;
- International terrorism.
In January 2001, then UN Secretary General (UN SG), Kofi Annan, established the Commission on Human Security (CHS) in response to the UN SG’s call at the 2000 Millennium Summit for a world “free of want” and “free of fear”. In 2003, CHS presented to Kofi Annan the Final Report “Human Security Now”, which clarified and further developed the vague definition of the human security paradigm specified in the Human Development Report 1994 as follows:
Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms – freedoms that are the essence of life. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity.
The next important step on the way to a broader utilization and institutionalization of the new security paradigm was the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change - A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. The report addressed both threats and challenges and, for the first time, explicitly enumerated and prioritized the following human security threats:
- Economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation;
- Inter-state conflict;
- Internal conflict, including civil war, genocide and other large-scale atrocities;
- Nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons;
- Transnational organized crime.
Contemporary security threats are being caused by both the state- as well as non-state actors, as current security threats do not recognize any borders. Furthermore, most of security threats have causal conditionality. They create a causal link(s) with other security threat(s).
Civil war, disease and poverty increase the likelihood of state collapse and facilitate the spread of organized crime, thus also increasing the risk of terrorism and proliferation due to weak states and weak collective capacity to exercise the rule of law.
A significance of that report rested also in the fact that it suggested a new UN definition of terrorism, which was absent. That deficiency constantly “prevents the United Nations from exerting its moral authority and from sending an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes.” The report argues that:
In addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism - the Geneva Conventions and UNSC Resolution 1566 (2004) - Terrorism should be described as “any action, that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”. 
However, it is necessary to note that in spite of all Kofi Annan’s personal efforts, the subsequent 60th jubilee UN General Assembly in 2005 failed once again to approve a mutual definition of terrorism. Until today, no universal convention on terrorism has been adopted! Concerning the emerging Human Security Concept, the only reference to the broader understanding of human security was the very general paragraph 143 of the General Assembly Resolution 60/1 of 24 October 2005:
We stress the right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair. We recognize that all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential. To this end, we commit ourselves to discussing and defining the notion of human security in the General Assembly.
However, this paragraph ensured the continuation of the human security institutionalization process of the 2010’s. The United Nations member states finally agreed to start formal/official discussions on the notion of human security.
After a formal debate, the consequential General Assembly Resolution 66/290 from September 10, 2012 finally agreed the human security common understanding. Institutionalization of the concept of human security in the official UN documents represents a significant victory and accomplishment after two decades’ effort of governmental, non-governmental organizations and informal UN bodies.
The common understanding on human security, agreed by the General Assembly in resolution 66/290 in September 2012, provides a useful way of thinking about how we respond to 21st-century challenges. By focusing on the interconnected pillars of peace and security, development and human rights, human security provides a comprehensive, integrated and people-centred approach for generating tangible improvements in the daily lives of the men, women and children this Organization exists to serve.
Partial implication II.
Evaluating the UN Human Security approach of the 1990’s through „the eyes“ and practical experience of European citizens of the 2010’s, it is possible to identify many analogies between “visionary conclusions” of the above mentioned UN Reports concerning the emerging human security threats for the 21st century and the real situation e. g. in Syria, Libya and consequently in Europe about 20 years later.
It can be assumed that the most of human security threats have a causal conditionality. They create causal links with one or more other security threats. Tracing the causality between particular threats to human security, it is posible to complete their classification by labeling particular human security threats as either primary (source) or secondary (induced) ones. Manytimes both assessments are possible – in case of a “double-meaning” security threat. It is possible to expect that taking into account chiefly the primary security threats may narrow down the number of security threats, which should principaly draw attention of security analysts.
3 HUMAN SECURITY THREATS’ CAUSAL ANALYSIS
The need of a causal “analysis of contexts” in favour of an effective solution logically arises from a broader perception of security as a multi-level process - politicization, securitization and de-securitization. The starting point is a simple logical reasoning that the essence of an effective and lasting solution to any problem does not lie in the “removal of consequences”, which that problem caused, but in focusing on elimination of its “root (source) causes”.
Most security threats create a causal link with one or more other security threats. This fact implies that there is a possibility to create a causal model (mental, graphic, etc.) of any security threat to simulate or to predict the consequences and successfulness / efectivity of a suggested security solution (securitizating or de-securitizating).
By analyzing a simple mental causal model of a general secondary security threat, the conclusion is that, such a threat can be effectively addressed (or reduced its acuity) by actively acting on one or more primary security threats - should their causal relationship has been identified. Otherwise, it is highly probable that the direct securitization of any secondary security threat will only cause a security dilemma (spiral), because the source of a negative phenomenon will not be removed, only its consequences will be securitized - what (in most cases) can generate negative effects in the form of further deterioration of the primary security threat’s severity, consequently creating additional secondary security threats and worsening the overall security situation.
For that reason, in the context of a secondary security threat’s causal model, it is necessary to look for (or to simulate) a suitable “causal loop”, which would allow not only the required removal (reduction in severity) of a particular secondary security threat, but also - principally - to address its source: the primary security threat (or threats).
Partial implication III.
A flagrant example would be a causal model of a state failure as the primary security threat – in relation to which it might be possible to identify a large number of causal links with secondary security threats. Therefore, a timely international support and assistance to weak or failing states might be considered the most effective tool capable of preventing multiple secondary threats to human security such as, for example, intra-state conflict, state bankruptcy transnational organized crime or mass migration and terorrism. In addition, that causal model could demonstrate correctness of the EU approach that considers the state failure as a major security threat with a critical role in an uncertain global security environment. 
4 SIMPLE CAUSAL MODEL - “FROM A STATE FAILURE TO A TERRORISM MANIFESTATION”
This causal model (see below) is not an elementary model of a single causal relationship between one primary and one secondary security threats. The reason is that the state failure subsequently creates more secondary security threats. While looking for a suitable “causal loop”, which would enable not only the required removal (or reduction in severity) of the threat of terrorism manifestations in Europe, but also to address systemically its sources (e.g. the mass migration), it is possible to find both opposing approaches – securitizing and de-securitizing ones.
Figure 1: Simple causal model of the way “from a state failure to a terrorism manifestation”
An official statement of the Slovak Government, expressed in the National Action Plan of Combating Terrorism for 2015-2018, represents the securitization tendencies of the mass migration solution.
Terrorism and radicalization have increased in recent years. Open borders within Europe and the resulting freedom of movement within the Schengen Area pose a potential threat in the form of uncontrolled flows of illegal migrants, including those with criminal backgrounds and experience of fighting in crisis areas. For this reason, it is now very important - within the fight against illegal migration - to strengthen the security controls of the external Schengen borders and to prevent European fighters from travelling to crisis areas, as well as to prevent suspects traveling from these areas from entering to the Schengen area. 
Opposing, de-securitizating trend holds the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which promotes the idea that human and organized migration is beneficial to both migrants and society. 
Migration in the twentieth century has irreversibly changed the developed western countries and brought unprecedented cultural diversity to the nationally defined countries without which these societies could no longer exist. Migrants have greatly helped the growth of advanced economies after the Second World War and the rise in the living standards of the local population, whether as highly qualified professionals, but more often as cheap labor in low-skilled and low-paid jobs. 
These two opposing views on the migration wave represent the current deep division of views among EU Member States. Buzan (1991), in this context, offers a possibility of a comprehensive evaluation, whether it is good or bad to securitize the issue of mass migration = "whether it is a good idea to make this issue a security issue - meaning to transfer it to the agenda of panic politics, or whether it is better handled within normal politics"? Expected result is the exclusion of one (or both) possible extreme(s): the (over)securitization of a non-existent threat AND/OR the de-securitization of an imminent threat (complacency). ANSWER OF THIS “KEY QUESTION” SHOULD DRAW HIGH ATTENTION OF TOP EU POLITICIANS.
Mapping of this causal model needs to start with the basic, initial statement that the mass migration is a secondary (induced) security threat, the source of which is in this particular case in the failing states - nowadays especially in Syria. Since 2011, the civil war in this country has gradually grown into an obscure, complicated regional armed conflict, exhaling millions of people from their homes, and forced them to leave their native land and property for the sole purpose of saving their bare life. Based on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on Human Security, 66/290 of 10 September 2012, this group of migrants, which utilize the Balkan migration route, has also the right “to live in freedom and dignity, without misery and despair ... free from fear and from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.” 
It should be remembered that the primary security threats to Syria (as a security actor) - the state failure and the resulting regional conflict - can also be characterized as "general" security threats to its population = Human Security Threats. However, mass migration, which is (also) a secondary security threat, now threatens - in case of its mishandling - the EU.
Within the presented causal model, it is possible to identify the increased risk of terrorism manifestations as a secondary security threat deriving from mass migration of Islamic population into Europe. The interconnection of individual terrorist attacks and their actors with terrorist organizations is another of the complex issues whose knowledge is important in terms of their investigation and subsequent repression and possible prevention. Many times, in the common media environment, the association of terrorist groups with the Islamic State (IS) is reported, but Europol, in its report of 20 July 2016, stated that most attacks in the EU are linked to jihadists, and the association of these terrorist attacks with IS is weak. In addition, Europol has highlighted alarming trends in the number of homecoming terrorists and a significant increase in anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist moods in the EU and their gradual increase.
The simple causal model of processes “from a state failure to a terrorist attack” is possible to divide into three levels (layers). The first level is formed by the primary security threats that have been identified as the original cause of mass migration from Syria - in our case, the state failure and the intra-state / regional conflict.
The second level is represented by the mass migration as a secondary security threat, derived from the primary ones (it is necessary to point out here that the mass migration is not the only secondary security threat derived from these two particular primary threats).
The third level of the causal model is created by secondary security threats, which are consequently derived from the real interaction of the EU security environment with the mass migration as a new immediate security threat - namely extreme nationalism and Islamic extremism, terrorism and some other threats (not mentioned at the Figure 1) such as the horizontal competition (possible unfavorable demographic development) and impending new epidemics or pandemics.
AXWORTHY, L. Human Security in the Era of Terrorism: The Responsibility to Protect, Center for Globalization and Policy Research Center for Civil Society and Canadian Studies Endowed Fund, UCLA, Working Paper No 14, 2003
BALDWIN, D. A. Concept of Security, Review of International Studies 23, No. 1, 1997
BUZAN, B. People, States and Fear – An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991 (Second Edition)
BUZAN, B., WAEVER, O., de WILDE, J., Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienner Publisher, 1998
BUZAN, B. The United States and the Great Powers, World Politics in the Twenty-First Century, Polity Press, 2004
COMMISSION ON HUMAN SECURITY, Human Security Now, UN CHS, 2003
EUROPOL, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT), 2016
HUMAN SECURITY UNIT, Strategic Plan 2014 – 2017, 2014
LEGRAIN, P. Immigrants. Your Country Needs Them. London, 2007
SOLANA, J. European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in a Better World, EU 2003
SOLANA, J. Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy - Providing Security in a Changing World, EU, 2008
UNSG High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A more secure world: Our shared responsibility, United Nations, 2004
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Challenges to Human Security in the Arab Countries, Arab Human Development Report 2009
WAEVER, O. Securitization and Desecuritization, in Lipschutz, R. D. (ed.) On Security, Colombia University Press, 1995
REMARKS AND CITATIONS
 HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (RA 9372) - a Philippine law, Manila, 19. 02. 2007,
 BARRY BUZAN, OLE WAEVER, JAAP de WILDE, Security, vii
 OLE WAEVER, Securitization and Desecuritization, in Lipschutz, R. D. (ed.) On Security (Colombia University Press, 1995)
 BARRY BUZAN, OLE WAEVER, JAAP de WILDE, Security, 23
 Ibid., 23 - 24
 BARRY BUZAN, OLE WAEVER, JAAP de WILDE, 34
 Ibid., 57
 STETTINIUS, E. R. Jr., The US Secretary of State report to the US government on the results of the San Francisco Conference, June 1945, in Human Development Report 1994, 3
 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, 1994 Human Development Report, 34
 COMMISSION ON HUMAN SECURITY, Human Security Now (UN CHS, 2003), 4
 UNSG HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON THREATS, CHALLENGES AND CHANGE, A more secure world: Our shared responsibility (United Nations, 2004), 23
 Ibid., 16
 Ibid., 51
 UNSG HIGH-LEVEL PANEL, A more secure world: Our shared responsibility (United Nations, 2004), 52
 HUMAN SECURITY UNIT, Strategic Plan 2014 – 2017, 3, from
 Complete security cannot be obtained within periodic situations called the security dilemma (spiral) when the security of one state (or a protected interest) is being achieved at the expense of security of the other and vice versa.
 National Action Plan of Combating Terrorism for 2015-2018 (approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic
on April 29, 2015), from http://www.rokovanie.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/BodRokovaniaDetail?idMaterial=24497
 IOM has been active in Slovakia since 1996, where it has implemented various projects and activities in the area of migrant integration and coordination of the activities of the European Migration Network - http://www.iom.sk/en
 ANDRÁŠOVÁ, S, Na čo je nám dobrá migrácia? (What is migration good at for us?), 34, from http://www.cpep.sk/fileadmin/Dokumenty/publikacie/migracia/Andrasova-Migracia.pdf (translated by author)
 BARRY BUZAN, OLE WAEVER, JAAP de WILDE, Security, 34
 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 September 2012 - 66/290. Follow-up to paragraph 143 on Human Security, of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. http://www.un.org/humansecurity/sites/www.un.org.humansecurity/files/hsu%20documents/GA%20Resolutions.pdf
 EUROPOL, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT), 2016, https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-te-sat-2016