Search

The quantitative terrorism literature has largely overlooked interstate relations when evaluating predictors of transnational terrorist attacks, opting to focus on state, group, or individual-level factors to explain patterns of terrorism using analytical methods that are limited to either the origin or target of the attack. In this piece we argue that this is both incongruous with the larger conflict literature and limiting in terms of theoretical impact. Transnational terrorism in many cases is more accurately considered a component of conflicting relations between two states generally hostile towards each other, which necessitates an examination of both states. We demonstrate, by conducting a series of statistical analyses using politically relevant directed dyads, that interstate rivalries are reliable positive predictors of transnational terrorism. We find that interstate rivalries explain a great deal of variation in cross-national patterns of terrorism, a result that is robust to different rivalry measures. Application to Pakistani-Indian terrorism further illustrates the cross-national results. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article analyzes the latest trends in India-Pakistan relations. It begins by justifying the assumption of one coherent Indian strategy towards Pakistan and, while focusing on the debate in India, argues that this strategy can best be described as one of "hedging." It then analyzes three sources of cooperation and six sources of competition—including one in Afghanistan. Next it argues that India should preferably follow an engagement strategy instead of its current hedging or the alternative containment strategies. At the same time, it acknowledges that an engagement strategy is unlikely, while there are recurrent terrorist attacks in India, especially those that have their roots in Pakistan. In the penultimate section, it examines the sort of political decisions that are needed in following this engagement strategy that should, ideally, lead toward a normalization of relations. However it concludes with the assessment that, despite the erratic composite dialogue, "ugly stability" continues to characterize the bilateral relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]