Journal•ISSN: 0140-2390
Journal of Strategic Studies
Taylor & Francis
About: Journal of Strategic Studies is an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Strategic studies & Political science. It has an ISSN identifier of 0140-2390. Over the lifetime, 1407 publications have been published receiving 18785 citations. The journal is also known as: The Journal of strategic studies.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: It is argued that attribution is what states make of it and to show how, the Q Model is introduced: designed to explain, guide, and improve the making of attribution.
Abstract: Who did it? Attribution is fundamental. Human lives and the security of the state may depend on ascribing agency to an agent. In the context of computer network intrusions, attribution is commonly seen as one of the most intractable technical problems, as either solvable or not solvable, and as dependent mainly on the available forensic evidence. But is it? Is this a productive understanding of attribution? — This article argues that attribution is what states make of it. To show how, we introduce the Q Model: designed to explain, guide, and improve the making of attribution. Matching an offender to an offence is an exercise in minimising uncertainty on three levels: tactically, attribution is an art as well as a science; operationally, attribution is a nuanced process not a black-and-white problem; and strategically, attribution is a function of what is at stake politically. Successful attribution requires a range of skills on all levels, careful management, time, leadership, stress-testing, prud...
314 citations
TL;DR: Theories of terrorism: Instrumental and organizational approaches as mentioned in this paper, is an example of a theory of terrorism that can be found in the work of the authors of the present paper.
Abstract: (1987). Theories of terrorism: Instrumental and organizational approaches. Journal of Strategic Studies: Vol. 10, Inside Terrorist Organizations, pp. 13-31.
243 citations
TL;DR: The authors suggests that the War on Terrorism is actually a campaign against a globalized Islamist insurgency and that counterinsurgency approaches are more relevant to the present conflict than traditional terrorism theory.
Abstract: This article suggests that the War on Terrorism is actually a campaign against a globalized Islamist 1 insurgency. Therefore, counterinsurgency approaches are more relevant to the present conflict than traditional terrorism theory. Indeed, a counterinsurgency approach would generate subtly, but substantially different, policy choices in prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda. Based on this analysis, the article proposes a strategy of ‘disaggregation’ that seeks to dismantle, or break, the links in the global jihad.2 Like containment in the Cold War, disaggregation would provide a unifying strategic conception for the war – a conception that has been somewhat lacking to date.
211 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors assess the state of the art in military innovation research and present four major schools of thought, summarizing their central tenets, key points of similarity and differentiation, and major empirical cases.
Abstract: This article assesses the state of the art in military innovation research. It begins with a description of the field's four major schools of thought, summarizing their central tenets, key points of similarity and differentiation, and major empirical cases. It then addresses priorities for future research, observing that while much has been learned about innovation originating among senior officers and civilian policy-makers, far less is known about innovation originating in field formations. Recent empirical studies hint at the importance of such bottom-up innovation but little progress has been made in achieving a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon. Therein lies the next major challenge, and opportunity, for the field.
168 citations
TL;DR: This paper argued that the phrase "hearts and minds" does not accurately describe Britain's highly coercive counter-insurgency campaign in Malaya, which led to abuses of human rights.
Abstract: This article introduces this special issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies by discussing the British model of counter-insurgency. General (later Field Marshal) Sir Gerald Templer associated the phrase ‘hearts and minds’ with Britain's apparently successful counter-insurgency campaign in Malaya (1948–60). The phrase ‘hearts and minds’ is generally associated with a less coercive approach to counter-insurgency which emphasises the importance of using ‘minimum force’ in order to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people. This article argues that the phrase ‘hearts and minds’ does not accurately describe Britain's highly coercive campaign in Malaya. The British approach in Malaya did involve high levels of force, was not fought within the law and led to abuses of human rights. Britain's counter-insurgency campaign in Northern Ireland did not deploy the same levels of coercion that were used in Malaya but, nevertheless, considerable levels of coercion were used which did not succeed in winning the ...
133 citations