| States' counterterrorism strategies have been categorized into the criminal justice and military models of counterterrorism. Currently, the international relations literature lacks a systematic exploration or theorization of these models, and relies mainly on broad conceptualizations and piecemeal evidence to make claims in reference to these two counterterrorism models.;This dissertation examines the conceptual literature on the criminal justice and military models of counterterrorism, further theorizes these models, and empirically analyzes both quantitatively and qualitatively using evidence from the United States. Using data from the Global Terrorism Database and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, spanning from 1970 to 2014, the quantitative analysis looks predominantly at the military model of counterterrorism in order to determine its relationship with terrorism and relevant domestic political processes. The qualitative analysis, comprised mainly of legal content analysis of the same temporal frame, investigates the conditions under which the models are employed, focusing especially on the criminal justice model. The findings suggest that criminal justice responses are employed mainly against perpetrators from Western nations and U.S. allies, while military responses are disproportionately used against Muslim individuals, especially those affiliated with al-Qaeda, Taliban, and al Shabab. The findings also suggest that both models have been equally employed before and after 9/11, calling into question claims from recent literature suggesting that military counterterrorism policy is a post-9/11 phenomenon. Finally, the results indicate that terrorism both directly and indirectly impacts military activity in the U.S. and, contrarily, that military activity is associated with increases in future supplies of terrorism. This suggests that military action alone may not be enough to combat terrorism. |
