domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV), is defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one partner against another in an intimate [1] relationship such as marriage, dating, family, or cohabitation. Domestic violence, so defined, has many forms, including physical aggression or assault (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse [1][2] [3] [4] (e.g.,neglect); and economic deprivation. Alcohol consumption and mental illness can be co-morbid with abuse, and present additional challenges in eliminating domestic violence. Awareness, perception, definition and documentation of domestic violence differs widely from country to country, and from era to era. Domestic violence and abuse is not limited to obvious physical violence. Domestic violence can also mean endangerment, criminal coercion, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, trespassing, harassment, and stalking he inflicting of physical injury by one family or household member on another; also: a repeated / habitual pattern of such [6] behavior."
Physical Main article: Physical abuse
Kalighat Painting, "Woman Striking Man With Broom," Calcutta, India, 1875 Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause feelings of intimidation, pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm. Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, punching, choking, pushing, burning and other types of contact that result in physical injury to the victim. Physical abuse can also include behaviors such as denying the victim of medical care when needed, depriving the victim of sleep or other functions necessary to live, or forcing the victim to engage in drug/alcohol use against his/her will. If a person is suffering from any physical harm then they are experiencing physical abuse. This pain can be experienced on any level.[41] It can also include inflicting physical injury onto other targets, such as children or pets, in order to cause psychological harm to the victim.[42] [edit]Sexual Sexual abuse is any situation in which force or threat is used to obtain participation in unwanted sexual activity. Coercing a person to engage in sexual activity against their will, even if that person is a spouse or intimate partner with whom consensual sex has occurred, is an act of aggression and violence. Sexual violence is defined by World Health Organization as: any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person‘s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.[43] Marital rape, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. As such, it is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. In the US spousal rape is illegal in all 50 states.[44][45] In Canada, spousal rape was outlawed in 1983, when several legal changes were made, including changing the rape statute to sexual assault, and making the laws gender neutral.[46] Criminalization inAustralia began with the state of New South Wales in 1981, followed by all other states from 1985 to 1992.[47] New Zealand outlawed spousal rape in 1985, and Ireland in 1990.[47] In England and Wales, spousal rape was made illegal in 1991, when the marital rape exemption was abolished by theAppellate Committee of the House of Lords, in the case of R v R.[48] Categories of sexual abuse include:
Use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against his or her will, whether or not the act is completed; Attempted or completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, unable to decline participation, or unable to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, e.g., because of underage immaturity, illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or because of intimidation or pressure. [edit]Emotional Main article: Emotional abuse Emotional abuse (also called psychological abuse or mental abuse) can include humiliating the victim privately or publicly, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, implicitly blackmailing the victim by harming others when the victim expresses independence or happiness, or denying the victim access to money or other basic resources and necessities. Degradation in any form can be considered psychological abuse. Emotional abuse can include verbal abuse and is defined as any behavior that threatens, intimidates, undermines the victim‘s self-worth or self-esteem, or controls the victim‘s freedom.[49] This can include threatening the victim with injury or harm, telling the victim that they will be killed if they ever leave the relationship, and public humiliation. Constant criticism, name-calling, and making statements that damage the victim‘s self-esteem are also common verbal forms of emotional abuse. Often perpetrators will use children to engage in emotional abuse by teaching them to harshly criticize the victim as well.[50] Emotional abuse includes conflicting actions or statements which are designed to confuse and create insecurity in the victim. These behaviors also lead the victims to question themselves, causing them to believe that they are making up the abuse or that the abuse is their fault.[42] Emotional abuse includes forceful efforts to isolate the victim, keeping them from contacting friends or family. This is intended to eliminate those who might try to help the victim leave the relationship and to create a lack of resources for them to rely on if they were to leave. Isolation results in damaging the victim‘s sense of internal strength, leaving them feeling helpless and unable to escape from the situation.[50] People who are being emotionally abused often feel as if they do not own themselves; rather, they may feel that their significant other has nearly total control over them. Women or men undergoing emotional abuse often suffer from depression, which puts them at increased risk for suicide, eating disorders, and drug and alcohol abuse.[51] [edit]Verbal Main article: Verbal abuse Verbal abuse is a form of emotionally abusive behavior involving the use of language. Verbal abuse can also be referred to as the act of threatening. Through threatening a person can blatantly say they will harm you in any way and will also be considered as abuse.[52] It may include profanity but can occur with or without the use of expletives.[citation needed] Verbal abuse may include aggressive actions such as name-calling, blaming, ridicule, disrespect, and criticism, but there are also less obviously aggressive forms of verbal abuse. Statements that may seem benign on the surface can be thinly veiled attempts to humiliate; falsely accuse; or manipulate others to submit to undesirable behavior, make others feel unwanted and unloved, threaten others economically, or isolate victims from support systems. [53] In Jekyll and Hyde behaviors, the abuser may fluctuate between sudden rages and false joviality toward the victim; or may simply show a very different "face" to the outside world than to the victim. While oral communication is the most common form of verbal abuse, it includes abusive communication in written form. [citation needed] [edit]Economic Main article: Economic abuse
Economic abuse is a form of abuse when one intimate partner has control over the other partner's access to economic resources.[54] Economic abuse may involve preventing a spouse from resource acquisition, limiting the amount of resources to use by the victim, or by exploiting economic resources of the victim. [54][55] The motive behind preventing a spouse from acquiring resources is to diminish victim's capacity to support him/herself, thus forcing him/her to depend on the perpetrator financially, which includes preventing the victim from obtaining education, finding employment, maintaining or advancing their careers, and acquiring assets.[54][55][56] In addition, the abuser may also put the victim on an allowance, closely monitor how the victim spends money, spend victim's money without his/her consent and creating debt, or completely spend victim's savings to limit available resources [54][55][56] [edit]Effects [edit]On children 3.3 million children witness domestic violence each year in the US. There has been an increase in acknowledgment that a child who is exposed to domestic abuse during their upbringing will suffer in their developmental and psychological welfare.[57] Because of the awareness of domestic violence that some children have to face, it also generally impacts how the child develops emotionally, socially, behaviorally as well as cognitively.[58] Some emotional and behavioral problems that can result due to domestic violence include increased aggressiveness, anxiety, and changes in how a child socializes with friends, family, and authorities.[57] Depression, as well as self-esteem issues, can follow due to traumatic experiences. Problems with attitude and cognition in schools can start developing, along with a lack of skills such as problemsolving.[57] Correlation has been found between the experience of abuse and neglect in childhood and perpertrating domestic violence and sexual abuse in adulthood.[59] Additionally, in some cases the abuser will purposely abuse the mother[60] or father[citation needed] in front of the child to cause a ripple effect, hurting two victims simultaneously.[60] It has been found that children who witness mother-assault are more likely to exhibit symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[61] Consequences to these children are likely to be more severe if their assaulted mother develops posttruamatic stress disorder (PTSD) and does not seek treatment due to her difficulty in assisting her child with processing his or her own experience of witnessing the domestic violence. [62] Family Violence prevention in Australia and other countries has begun to focus on breaking intergenerational cycles, according to the National (Aust) Standards for Working with Children Exposed to Family Violence it is important to acknowledge that exposing children to Family Violence is child abuse. [63] Some of the effects of Family Violence on children are highlighted in the Queensland Government and SunnyKids awareness raising campaign.[64] [edit]Physical Bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, and internal bleeding are some of the acute effects of a domestic violence incident that require medical attention and hospitalization.[65] Some chronic health conditions that have been linked to victims of domestic violence are arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pain, pelvic pain, ulcers, and migraines.[66] Victims who are pregnant during a domestic violence relationship experience greater risk of miscarriage, pre-term labor, and injury to or death of the fetus.[65] [edit]Psychological Among victims who are still living with their perpetrators high amounts of stress, fear, and anxiety are commonly reported. Depression is also common, as victims are made to feel guilty for ‗provoking‘ the abuse and are frequently subjected to intense criticism. It is reported that 60% of victims meet the diagnostic criteria for depression, either during or after termination of the relationship, and have a greatly increased risk of suicidality. [67] In addition to depression, victims of domestic violence also commonly experience long-term anxiety and panic, and are likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Panic Disorder. The most commonly referenced psychological effect of domestic violence is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD). PTSD (as experienced by victims) is characterized by flashbacks, intrusive images, exaggerated startle response, nightmares, and avoidance of triggers that are associated with the abuse.[68] These symptoms are generally experienced for a long span of time after the victim has left the dangerous situation. Many researchers state that PTSD is possibly the best diagnosis for those suffering from psychological effects of domestic violence, as it accounts for the variety of symptoms commonly experienced by victims of trauma. [edit]Financial
Once victims leave their perpetrator, they can be stunned with the reality of the extent to which the abuse has taken away their autonomy. Due to economic abuse and isolation, the victim usually has very little money of their own and few people on whom they can rely when seeking help. This has been shown to be one of the greatest obstacles facing victims of DV, and the strongest factor that can discourage them from leaving their perpetrators. [69] In addition to lacking financial resources, victims of DV often lack specialized skills, education, and training that are necessary to find gainful employment, and also may have several children to support. In 2003, thirty-six major US cities cited DV as one of the primary causes of homelessness in their areas.[70] It has also been reported that one out of every three homeless women are homeless due to having left a DV relationship. If a victim is able to secure rental housing, it is likely that her apartment complex will have ―zero tolerance‖ policies for crime; these policies can cause them to face eviction even if they are the victim (not the perpetrator) of violence.[70] While the number of shelters and community resources available to DV victims has grown tremendously, these agencies often have few employees and hundreds of victims seeking assistance which causes many victims to remain without the assistance they need.[69] [edit]Long-term Domestic violence can trigger many different responses in victims, all of which are very relevant for any professional working with a victim. Major consequences of domestic violence victimization include psychological/mental health issues and chronic physical health problems. A victim‘s overwhelming lack of resources can lead to homelessness and poverty. [edit]On responders [edit]Vicarious trauma See also: Vicarious traumatization Due to the gravity and intensity of hearing victims‘ stories of abuse, professionals (police, counselors, therapists, advocates, medical professionals) are at risk themselves for secondary or vicarious trauma (VT), which causes the responder to experience trauma symptoms similar to the original victim after hearing about the victim‘s experiences with abuse.[71] Research has demonstrated that professionals who experience vicarious trauma show signs of exaggerated startle response, hypervigilance, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts although they have not experienced a trauma personally and do not qualify for a clinical diagnosis of PTSD.[71] Researchers concluded that although clinicians have professional training and are equipped with the necessary clinical skills to assist victims of domestic violence, they may still be personally affected by the emotional impact of hearing about a victim‘s traumatic experiences. Iliffe et al. found that there are several common initial responses that are found in clinicians who work with victims: loss of confidence in their ability to help the client, taking personal responsibility for ensuring the client‘s safety, and remaining supportive of the client‘s autonomy if they make the decision to return to their perpetrator. [71] It has also been shown that clinicians who work with a large number of victims may alter their former perceptions of the world, and begin to doubt the basic goodness of others. Iliffe et al. found that clinicians who work with victims tend to feel less secure in the world, become ―acutely aware‖ of power and control issues both in society and in their own personal relationships, have difficulty trusting others, and experience an increased awareness of gender-based power differences in society.[71] The best way for a clinician to avoid developing VT is to engage in good self-care practices. These can include exercise, relaxation techniques, debriefing with colleagues, and seeking support from supervisors. [71] Additionally, it is recommended that clinicians make the positive and rewarding aspects of working with domestic violence victims the primary focus of thought and energy, such as being part of the healing process or helping society as a whole. Clinicians should also continually evaluate their empathic responses to victims, in order to avoid feelings of being drawn in to the trauma that the victim experienced. It is recommended that clinicians practice good boundaries, and find a balance in expressing empathic responses to the victim while still maintaining personal detachment from their traumatic experiences.[71] [edit]Burnout See also: Burnout (psychology) Vicarious trauma can lead directly to burnout, which is defined as ―emotional exhaustion resulting from excessive demands on energy, strength, and personal resources in the work setting‖.[72]The physical warning signs of burnout include headaches, fatigue, lowered immune function, and irritability. [73] A clinician experiencing burnout may begin to
lose interest in the welfare of clients, be unable to empathize or feel compassion for clients, and may even begin to feel aversion toward the client.[72] If the clinician experiencing burnout is working with victims of domestic violence, the clinician risks causing further great harm through re-victimization of the client. It should be noted, however, that vicarious trauma does not always directly lead to burnout and that burnout can occur in clinicians who work with any difficult population – not only those who work with domestic violence victims.
Cause There are many different theories as to the causes of domestic violence. These include psychological theories that consider personality traits and mental characteristics of the perpetrator, as well as social theories which consider external factors in the perpetrator's environment, such as family structure, stress, social learning. As with many phenomena regarding human experience, no single approach appears to cover all cases. Whilst there are many theories regarding what causes one individual to act violently towards an intimate partner or family member there is also growing concern around apparent intergenerational cycles of domestic violence. In Australia where it has been identified that as many as 75% of all victims of domestic violence are children [74] Domestic violence services such as Sunnykids are beginning to focus their attention on children who have been exposed to domestic violence. [75] Responses that focus on children suggest that experiences throughout life influence an individuals' propensity to engage in family violence (either as a victim or as a perpetrator). Researchers supporting this theory suggest it is useful to think of three sources of domestic violence: childhood socialization, previous experiences in couple relationships during adolescence, and levels of strain in a person's current life. People who observe their parents abusing each other, or who were themselves abused may incorporate abuse into their behaviour within relationships that they establish as adults. (Kalmuss & Seltzer 1984) [edit]Psychological Psychological theories focus on personality traits and mental characteristics of the offender. Personality traits include sudden bursts of anger, poor impulse control, and poor self-esteem. Various theories suggest that psychopathology and other personality disorders are factors, and that abuse experienced as a child leads some people to be more violent as adults. Correlation has been found between juvenile delinquency and domestic violence in adulthood. [76] Studies have found high incidence of psychopathy among abusers.[77][78][79] For instance, some research suggests that about 80% of both court-referred and self-referred men in these domestic violence studies exhibited diagnosable psychopathology, typically personality disorders. "The estimate of personality disorders in the general population would be more in the 15–20% range [...] As violence becomes more severe and chronic in the relationship, the likelihood of psychopathology in these men approaches 100%."[4] Dutton has suggested a psychological profile of men who abuse their wives, arguing that they have borderline personalities that are developed early in life.[80][81] However, these psychological theories are disputed: Gelles suggests that psychological theories are limited, and points out that other researchers have found that only 10% (or less) fit this psychological profile. He argues that social factors are important, while personality traits, mental illness, or psychopathy are lesser factors. [82][83][84] [edit]Jealousy Many cases of domestic violence against women occur due to jealousy when the woman is either suspected of being unfaithful or is planning to leave the relationship. [85][86] An evolutionary psychology explanation of such cases of domestic violence against women is that they represent male attempts to control female reproduction and ensure sexual exclusivity through violence or the threat of violence.[85][86] [edit]Behavioral Behavioral theories draw on the work of behavior analysts. Applied behavior analysis uses the basic principles of learning theory to change behavior. Behavioral theories of domestic violence focus on the use of functional assessment with the goal of reducing episodes of violence to zero rates. [87] This program leads to behavior therapy. Often by identifying the antecedents and consequences of violent action, the abusers can be taught self control.[88] Recently more focus has been placed on prevention and a behavioral prevention theory.[87]
[edit]Social theories Looks at external factors in the offender's environment, such as family structure, stress, social learning, and includes rational choice theories.[89] [edit]Resource theory Resource theory was suggested by William Goode (1971).[90] Women who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage. Dependency means that they have fewer options and few resources to help them cope with or change their spouse's behavior. [91] Couples that share power equally experience lower incidence of conflict, and when conflict does arise, are less likely to resort to violence. If one spouse desires control and power in the relationship, the spouse may resort to abuse. [92] This may include coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, economic abuse, isolation, making light of the situation and blaming the spouse, using children (threatening to take them away), and behaving as "master of the castle". [93][94] [edit]Social stress Stress may be increased when a person is living in a family situation, with increased pressures. Social stresses, due to inadequate finances or other such problems in a family may further increase tensions. [95] Violence is not always caused by stress, but may be one way that some people respond to stress.[96][97] Families and couples in poverty may be more likely to experience domestic violence, due to increased stress and conflicts about finances and other aspects. [98] Some speculate that poverty may hinder a man's ability to live up to his idea of "successful manhood", thus he fears losing honor and respect. Theory suggests that when he is unable to economically support his wife, and maintain control, he may turn to misogyny, substance abuse, and crime as ways to express masculinity.[98] [edit]Social learning theory Social learning theory suggests that people learn from observing and modeling after others' behavior. With positive reinforcement, the behavior continues. If one observes violent behavior, one is more likely to imitate it. If there are no negative consequences (e. g. victim accepts the violence, with submission), then the behavior will likely continue. Often, violence is transmitted from generation to generation in a cyclical manner. [vague] [99][100][101] [edit]Power and control In abusive relationships, violence is posited to arise out of a need for power and control of one partner over the other. An abuser will use various tactics of abuse (e.g., physical, verbal, emotional, sexual or financial) in order to establish and maintain control over the partner. Abusers' efforts to dominate their partners have been attributed to low self-esteem or feelings of inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, the stress of poverty, hostility and resentment toward women (misogyny), hostility and resentment toward men (misandry), personality disorders, genetic tendencies and sociocultural influences, among other possible causative factors. Most authorities seem to agree that abusive personalities result from a combination of several factors, to varying degrees. A causalist view of domestic violence is that it is a strategy to gain or maintain power and control over the victim. This view is in alignment with Bancroft's "cost-benefit" theory that abuse rewards the perpetrator in ways other than, or in addition to, simply exercising power over his or her target(s). He cites evidence in support of his argument that, in most cases, abusers are quite capable of exercising control over themselves, but choose not to do so for various reasons. [102] An alternative view is that abuse arises from powerlessness and externalizing/projecting this and attempting to exercise control of the victim. It is an attempt to 'gain or maintain power and control over the victim' but even in achieving this it cannot resolve the powerlessness driving it. Such behaviours have addictive aspects leading to a cycle of abuse or violence. Mutual cycles develop when each party attempts to resolve their own powerlessness in attempting to assert control. Questions of power and control are integral to the widely utilized Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. They developed a "Power and Control Wheel" to illustrate this: it has power and control at the center, surrounded by spokes
(techniques used), the titles of which include: coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing, denying and blaming, using children, economic abuse, and male privilege.[103] The model attempts to address abuse by challenging the misuse of power by the perpetrator. The power wheel model is not intended to assign personal responsibility, enhance respect for mutual purpose or assist victims and perpetrators in resolving their differences. Rather, it is an informational tool designed to help individuals understand the dynamics of power operating in abusive situations and identify various methods of abuse. Critics of this model argue that it ignores research linking domestic violence to substance abuse and psychological problems.[104] Some modern research into the patterns in DV has found that women are more likely to be physically abusive towards their partner in relationships in which only one partner is violent, [38][39] which draws the effectiveness of using concepts like male privilege to treat domestic violence into question; however, it may still be valid in studying severe abuse cases, which are mostly male perpetrated.[39] However, modern research into predictors of injury from domestic violence finds that the strongest predictor of injury by domestic violence is participation in reciprocal domestic violence, and that this pattern of domestic violence is more often initiated by the female in the relationship. [105] [edit]Mental illness Psychiatric disorders are sometimes associated with domestic violence, such as borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, drug abuse, andalcoholism.[2] It is estimated that at least one-third of all abusers have some type of mental illness.[106] [edit]Marital conflict disorder The American Psychiatric Association planning and research committees for the forthcoming DSM-5 (2012) have canvassed a series of new Relational disorders which include Marital Conflict Disorder Without Violence or Marital Abuse Disorder (Marital Conflict Disorder With Violence).[107] Couples with marital disorders sometimes come to clinical attention because the couple recognize long-standing dissatisfaction with their marriage and come to the clinician on their own initiative or are referred by an astute health care professional. Secondly, there is serious violencein the marriage which is -"usually the husband battering the wife".[108] In these cases the emergency room or a legal authority often is the first to notify the clinician. Most importantly, marital violence "is a major risk factor for serious injury and even death and women in violent marriages are at much greater risk of being seriously injured or killed (National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women 2000)."[109] The authors of this study add that "There is current considerable controversy over whether male-to-female marital violence is best regarded as a reflection of male psychopathology and control or whether there is an empirical base and clinical utility for conceptualizing these patterns as relational."[109] Recommendations for clinicians making a diagnosis of Marital Relational Disorder should include the assessment of actual or "potential" male violence as regularly as they assess the potential forsuicide in depressed patients. Further, "clinicians should not relax their vigilance after a battered wife leaves her husband, because some data suggest that the period immediately following a marital separation is the period of greatest risk for the women. Many men will stalk and batter their wives in an effort to get them to return or punish them for leaving. Initial assessments of the potential for violence in a marriage can be supplemented by standardized interviews and questionnaires, which have been reliable and valid aids in exploring marital violence more systematically." [109] The authors conclude with what they call "very recent information" [110] on the course of violent marriages which suggests that "over time a husband's battering may abate somewhat, but perhaps because he has successfully intimidated his wife. The risk of violence remains strong in a marriage in which it has been a feature in the past. Thus, treatment is essential here; the clinician cannot just wait and watch."[110] The most urgent clinical priority is the protection of the wife because she is the one most frequently at risk, and clinicians must be aware that supporting assertiveness by a battered wife may lead to more beatings or even death. Customary law is a recognized source of law within jurisdictions of the civil law tradition, inferior to both statutes and regulations. In addressing custom as a source of law within the civil law tradition, John Henry [2] Merryman notes that, though the attention it is given in scholarly works is great, its importance is "slight and decreasing."
In Canada, customary aboriginal law has a constitutional foundation
[3]
and for this reason has increasing influence.
[4]
In the Scandinavian countries customary law continues to exist and has great influence. Customary law is also used in [5] some Third World countries, such as those in Africa, usually used alongside common or civil law. For example in Ethiopia, despite the adoption of legal codes based on civil law in the 1950s according to Dolores Donovan and Getachew Assefa there are more than 60 systems of customary law currently in force, "some of them operating quite independently of the formal state legal system." They offer two reasons for the relative autonomy of these customary law systems: one is that the Ethiopian government lacks sufficient resources to enforce its legal system to every corner of Ethiopia; the other is that the Ethiopian government has made a commitment to preserve these customary systems within [6] its boundaries. In 1995, President of Kyrgyzstan Askar Akaev announced a decree to revitalize the aqsaqal courts of village elders. The [7] courts would have jurisdiction over property, torts and family law. Theaqsaqal courts were eventually included under Article 92 of the Kyrgyz constitution. As of 2006, there were approximately 1,000 aqsaqal courts throughout Kyrgyzstan, [8] including in the capital ofBishkek. Akaev linked the development of these courts to the rekindling of Kyrgyz national identity. In a 2005 speech, he connected the courts back to the country's nomadic past and extolled how the courts [9] expressed the Kyrgyz ability of self-governance. Similar aqsaqal courts exist, with varying levels of legal formality, in other countries of Central Asia. The Somali people in the Horn of Africa follow a customary law system referred to as Xeer. It survives to a significant [10] [11] degree everywhere, including the Somali communities in the Ogaden. Economist Peter Leeson attributes the increase in economic activity since the fall of the Siad Barre administration to the security in life, liberty and property provided by [12] Xeer in large parts ofSomalia. The late Dutch attorney Michael van Notten also draws upon his experience as a legal expert in his comprehensive study on Xeer, The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa (200
What is terrorism? Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use violence and threats to create fear among the public, to try to convince people that their government is powerless to prevent acts of terrorism, and to get immediate publicity for their causes. Acts of terrorism can range from threats to actual assassinations, kidnappings, airline hijackings, bomb scares, car bombs, building explosions, mailings of dangerous materials, agroterrorism, computer-based attacks, and the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons—weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
In addition to the natural and technological hazards described elsewhere in this guide, people face threats of terrorism posed by extremist groups, individuals, and hostile governments. Terrorists can be domestic or foreign, and their threats to people, communities, and the nation range from isolated acts of terrorism to acts of war. High-risk terrorism targets include military and civilian government facilities, international
airports, large cities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. They are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail.
All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice. Terrorism is a political virus. Greed for power, injustice and intolerance breed terrorism. According to sociologists and experts on terrorism the French Revolution provided the first uses of the words ‗terrorist‘ and ‗terrorism‘. The use of the word terrorism began in 1795 in reference to the Reign of Terror initiated by the Revolutionary government in France during the French Revolution. The agents of the Committee of Public Safety and the National Convention that enforced the policies of ―The Terror‖ were referred to as ‗terrorists‘. The French Revolution provided an example for future states in oppressing their populations. It also inspired a reaction by royalists and other opponents of the Revolution who employed terrorist tactics such as assassination and intimidation in resistance to the revolutionary agents. Systematic use of terror as a policy was first recorded in England in 1798. The words ‗terrorism‘ and ‗terrorist‘ were first used as political terms to describe atrocities of an occupying establishment – say colonial government. Researches done on the history of terrorism reveal that ‗terrorist‘ in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine – while earlier it was used for extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866). The tendency of one party‘s terrorism said to be another‘s guerilla war or fight for freedom was noted in reference to the antiBritish actions in India (1857), Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist was applied, at least retroactively, to the Marquis resistance in occupied France during the World War II. The Britain first used the terms ‗terrorism and terrorist‘ to describe anti-establishment forces or those who used hit-and-run practices against British colonialism. It is relatively hard to define terrorism albeit it is not a new phenomenon for the world. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to alleged oppression and an inexcusable abomination.‘ As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost.
Terrorism in India can be attributed to many low intensity conflicts within its borders. The regions with long term terrorist activities today are Jammu and Kashmir, Mumbai, Central India (Naxalism) and Seven Sister States (Independence and Autonomy Movements). In the past, the Punjab insurgency led to militant activities in the Indian state of Punjab as well as the national capital Delhi (Delhi serial blasts, anti-Sikh riots). As of 2006, at least 232 of the country‘s 608 districts were afflicted, at differing intensities, by various insurgent and terrorist movements. Terrorism in India has often been alleged to be sponsored by Pakistan. After most acts of terrorism in India, many journalists and politicians accuse Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence of playing a role.
Etnicity, nationalism/separatism Probably the most contested cause of terrorism is an aggrieved group resorting to violence for nationalist or separatist reasons; depending on one's point of view, this can be considered as resistance against an (external) oppressor. Thus far, only Mahatma Ghandi and his followers of the freedom movement have managed to liberate themselves from foreign occupation by peaceful means (Drewermann, 2001), whereas in most other (previously) colonised states "nationalism movements commonly turned to terrorism", it being "the resort of an extremist faction of this broader movement" within an ethnic minority (Crenshaw, 1981:383). Williams (1994) provides an overview on the relation between ethnic minorities and the likelihood of conflict, for example to establish or assert language rights, religious beliefs and symbols (1994:59),
but he also includes factors like "civil and political rights and privileges, ..., regional-ethnic parity in the economy... What then generates perceptions of unfairness is competition/rivalry when an ethny is subordinated or disadvantaged in economic opportunity, social status, political voice and rights, or cultural expressions." (Williams, 1994:59) However, the cited factors are not unique for ethnic minorities. To generalize it further, ethnic conflict arises from a "complex combination" of class, inequality, political opportunity, mobilization resources and "ethnic strength" (Williams, 1994:49). How can 'ethnic strength' be measured, and to what extend is ethnicity (and related nationalist separatist movements) a constructed concept? (Nevertheless, the idea works for mobilizing people). One note of caution on the importance of ethnic conflict is appropriate. Fearon and Laitin (1996) assessed the ratio of actual versus potential communal violence in Africa from independence through 1979, ranging from 0.0005 for actual ethnic violence to 0.0028 (or 0.28%) for ethnic civil war, thereby claiming that incidence of ethnic conflict is hugely overestimated due to research bias. Worded more positively: most ethnic groups live in peace with each other.
Poverty and economic disadvantage, globalisation A more important factor may be the social stratification Williams is referring to and inequalities in the distribution of scarce resources. Extensive contemporary media and literature simplify this to the poverty argument (e.g. Murphy (2001) and Kristof (2002)): when a group is absolutely or relatively deprived they rebel. A comprehensive evaluation of the extant literature on the validity of this argument, the Economic Inequality - Political Conflict (EI-PC) hypothesis, has been carried out by Lichbach (1989), who came to the conclusion that "EI-PC studies have produced an equivocal answer about the EI-PC nexus" (p440) regardless the research angle (statistics, rational actor and deprived actor paradigms). Problems Lichbach identified were notions on the lack of exactly defined economic factors influencing the decision to resort to political conflict and the "tolerance for inequality" (p452), according to the Rational Actor (RA) approach shifting to behavioural dissent only when absolute poverty is present, the Deprived Actor (DA) scientific research program's undefined additional "intermediate psychological processes" (p459), and another not fully explored factor of the (insignificant) influence of collective action (p465). Say, one dismisses the inconclusive research results and assumes that it is a (major) cause fuelling terrorism - proof by contradiction: roughly 15% of the population consumes 85% of the resources, UN statistics show that citizens in the Third World are worse off now than 30 years ago, while a small faction in those countries enriched themselves, i.e. RA and DA are both present as well as the statistics. If either one of them is true, the West ought to be continuously subject to terrorist acts by (a small group representing) people from these Third World countries. But there is no huge mass uprising of the vast majority of the world population against the few in Western states, nor continuous terrorist attacks carried out by Third World citizens against the West. In fact, the amount of terrorist incidents declined in the 1990s. (Refer to e.g. 'Patterns of Global Terrorism' publications, downloadable from the US State Department website at http://www.usemb.se/terror/). Broadening the perspective to globalisation, Galtung (2002) blames the Third World - First World dichotomy as a new version of class conflict based on structural violence. This assertion in itself may provide an explanation as to why widespread social upheaval has not occurred. Proving injustice being done by structural violence is considerably more difficult than an overt assault on a country or discrimination of a target group, and even if one succeeds in convincing one's own group, they will likely stumble upon resorting to terrorist methods, not possessing sufficient assets to purchase and develop so-called 'weapons of mass destruction'. This is an example of a wider gap between means and ends. Guelke (1995) explores globalisation, inequality and the Third World from another direction and explores the possible links between economic affluence and a stable liberal democracy, thereby assuming that it would reduce incidence of terrorism. However, at the same time he asserts that a liberal democracy "has proved little more successful than other forms of political systems in overcoming the relative weakness of the state in many Third World societies" (p135) and that economic development is a more important factor to maintain law and order. Guelke is more concerned with intra-Third World conflicts than world wide international terrorism as "there has been relatively little spill-over from political violence within Third World states into the international arena" (p142) and in addition to economic development, the possible effects a "debilitated" liberal democracy in Third World countries may induce and facilitate, but without formulating a sound conclusion on the matter either.
(non)democracy The factor of democracy as an instigator or facilitator for terrorism deserves further exploration. A democratic government is supposed to represent the people and provide political means to voice grievances, hence essentially providing a sphere
where terrorism has no place. For this reason, in theory, there 'cannot' be an aggrieved group that is not adequately represented; otherwise, it is a "violation of the doctrines of democracy and constitutionalism" (Wilkinson, 1977:232). In reality, this may not be the case: for example the 'second-class citizens' in the democratic Jewish state Israel (excluding non-Jewish citizens certain rights (Dworkin, 1997:222)). Such a situation would fit Wilkinson's assertion that political violence is morally justifiable in a democracy in two occasions: "Firstly, there is the case of the minority whose basic rights and liberties are denied or taken away by arbitrary action of the government or its agencies. ... Second when one minority is attacked by another minority and does not receive adequate protection from the state and its forces of law and order." (Wilkinson, 1977:40) and "Those who are the subjects of a liberal state, but who are not admitted to its rights of citizenship cannot be morally bound to obedience to the state. They are not bound by political obligation for they have not been accorded any rights by the state." (Wilkinson, 1977:39) Arguably, based on these claims, one can say it is exactly absence of a 'correct' implementation of democratic ideals and not democracy sic. However, a characteristic of democracies is their openness. Some, like Meyer (2002) and Khan (2003), consider this openness a major weakness of the system, and therefore a 'cause'. Openness in itself cannot be a cause, only maybe easing terrorists in their preparations and facilitating publicity in the relative absence of censorship, but not the 'change of mindset' to resort to terrorism as a tool. Likewise the non-cause of the claims of the increase in ease of mobility and technology, put forward by for example Homer-Dixon (2002). It is conceivable to contend that Western states are as close to the democratic ideology as possible, but it is generally assumed the case, thereby invalidating Wilkinson's two occasions. Why then, have Western states not been free from internal terrorism? What might be a cause, is the so-called 'terror of the majority': the minority is represented and allowed to voice their grievances, but this is consistently not translated into desired policies because there are not sufficient votes to pass desired legislation.
Disaffected intelligentsia Rubenstein elaborates another interesting aspect occurring in Western liberal democratic states in his book Alchemists of Revolution (1987), though not necessarily because of a hiatus in democratic governance. There are two points I would like to bring under attention. First, Rubenstein's thesis that the main cause of terrorism are disgruntled, disaffected, intelligentsia who are in a social and moral crisis unable to mobilize the masses. This is "a primary internal cause of terrorism, dictating to a degree its philosophy, tactics and consequences" (Rubenstein, 1987:xvii). Intellectuals, of the type of ambitious idealist, do not have a rebellious lower class to lead due to shifts from primary and manual work to the services sector, nor do they receive guidance from a creative upper class that they can follow. When rigid social stratification shatter hopes for social transformation, then the ingredients are present for a start or rise in terrorist activities in an attempt to reconnect with the masses who they claim to represent and aspire to lead. Examples: "...ever since the Russian intellectuals "invented" modern terrorism..." (Radu, 2001), referring to Narodnaya Volya, Wieviorka's "Disappointed, frustrated or unrealisable upward mobility" (1988:29); "middle-class alienation" (Kristof, 2002); "spoilt children of affluence" (Wilkinson, 1977:93); Crenshaw (1981); Williams (1994:65), and so forth. But now, 15 years after the book's publication, access to third level education (the 'democratisation of education') has increased to such an extend that it devalues degrees to a minimum standard for procuring a job. Is the degree graduate now the new (white collar) working class stuck in his/her cubicle? If true, then the 'gap' between the masses and intelligentsia is smaller at present, hence more likely to be bridge-able, and therefore less prone to induce ideas to resort to terrorism, thus at least weakening Rubenstein's view. The second aspect of Rubenstein's book is a broad discussion on the myriad of, predominantly leftist, political ideologies - indirectly the perceived cause being the undemocratic government, unfair capitalist system et al - but may simply be a failed revolution.
Dehumanisation Opposite the concept of disaffected intelligentsia is the assertion that it is not intelligentsia, but simpleminded people who are easy to indoctrinate that are perceived to be 'the cause' (Rathbone and Rowley, 2002) prevalent in more recent popular literature. They, and others, are essentially trying to dehumanise terrorists, thereby confirming terrorist's core reasons they are fighting for: being heard, recognised and treated as equal human beings. In this context, Midgley (2002) has put forward an interesting explanation for the increased levels of dehumanisation: "a continuation of the frozen, abstract hatreds made possible by the cold war... this suspending of normal human relations is supposed to be just a temporary expedient ... The corrupt thing about the Cold War idea was that it legitimised acceptance of this evil as a
normal, permanent condition of life. It domesticated tribal hatred." Thus obfuscating the distinction between literal and metaphorical wars, where the negative mindset of people caused by the Cold War continues to live on, and feed, terrorism and the violent responses on terrorism, made possible by disregarding the idea that an opponent is a human being too. However, a closer examination of this argument reveals that the implied cause of the violence is within us, having internalised dehumanisation, not the 'illiterate stupid other'.
Religion In line with either dehumanisation, or with previously outlined ethnicity and democracy or both, is religion as a cause for terrorism put forward, 'Muslim fanatics in the Middle East' in particular. Michael Radu (2001), senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in the US, provides a simplification: democracy is declared un-Islamic by all ideologues of Islamic terrorism, Islamists hate capitalism and believe in a new Caliphate (who will lead the community of Muslims worldwide) and oppose individualism. Statistics reveal two relevant intriguing facets. One is religious revival in general, with the US at the top (Doyle, 2003), the other is statistics on killings (including from one murder to world wars) gathered and analysed by Lewis Fry Richardson (referenced in Hayes, 2001), among other factors, on the causality of violence and religion: "The one social factor that does have some detectable correlation with war is religion. ... nations that differ in religion are more likely to fight than those that share the same religion. Moreover, some sects seem generally to be more bellicose (Christian nations participated in a disproportionate number of conflicts). But these effects are not large." (Hayes, 2002:15) Bear in mind though, that there are also a 'disproportionate' amount Christians. In turn, it can be argued that there are many Christians exactly because they 'seem generally to be more bellicose'. Notwithstanding the above, all religions emphasise that one should treat others as we wish to be treated, and that one should not kill another human being (the latter with a few exceptions, e.g. Just War Theory). From an Islamic perspective, there are scholars who consider Western society, which is based on Christian theology, as the main cause of terrorism, and Darwinism and materialism in particular (Yahya, (1)), including Malthus' theory of ruthlessness, also known under the definition of social Darwinism. Last, New Age - as a religion - considers the perceived cause of terrorism the "modern society", being "too stressful and uncreative" (Ridgley, 1999), i.e. a problem within oneself.
