Counterterrorism as Risk Management Strategies

Management Strategies

by

Sissel Haugdal Jore

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR (PhD)

Faculty of Science and Technology Department of Industrial Economics,

Risk Management and Planning 2012

N-4036 Stavanger NORWAY

© 2012 Sissel Haugdal Jore ISBN: 978-82-7644-513-8 ISSN:1890-1387

Dr avh. Nr 178

Preface

!"# $ %"&'(

) *+, # " # , , ,- " # , # " . , #

! * " # , - "#*,#

- " /

**

, , * 0 , * " # * - **

"1 - "

/ )

* " /

*2 * " '*

) *, #

* * !

" . ,

***"3

*&'#

* , ,

*" / &' * * "

40,

#" # , *,

*"

, * 5 **,

*" # * * *, *"

/ 2 * "*

* *!

* " / # & # *

"40,#*&

# ,*,**

,"/

*

"#, , **,*

, * *

*" #& # * " 0, & #

&##"

# * * " 3, # , & 6

!7, *, , " . * * " # , & / 1!8*,

**"#''9,9

1, * " 3, #

&:/.;4 41,* * * (4 / )+ </)/=" / # 1 * , * " # 4 ) 4 * 6 *

# "# *6)#:

! * , ,* "

** "#

,# *"'*,#

*

# , * * *">"

3, # * " # , /!8, ,-8*3"/,#"

*,$"*

.*-

Summary

<?@=, A,*, " ?@ A

* B * 2*

* * * B

" / * ?@, , " C

* *

?@"/

?@* *B " /

* *

"

* ,, * *" 3* #

* *, , 0, # * * 2*"

,

#?@

,*0"

/ # "/

,! ,*D,, "/

" # , # ** ,

* 0 *

"

,* "

, # **

(* ' + <.!, ??E=

*"# ;*

2 !

*"

/*0 *5

• .

;F

• . *

*;*

F

• A *

F

• A2*

F

/ 0 " 1 * ??G 2 H,#**

?@, # **

*;*

"

/ * * * " / * * ,

*B, " / ,*

* '"

/ , 2&#"/

"' " . , , "

0, * 0 *;

,B*

"' 0"

!" / * * " * ??

***,*,*, *

"'*,*

* "

/ ?@

,,, 0, " C * ! * * ,**

*

" 6 , (* + ,

*!"

6 , ( +

*B

" 1 * , *

*B2*

* *, (+*

" / *

* " 4 * * * ??

*0?@"

/ * * * " # * *

"1?@, *"

?@,*

* " / , " /,

* C " / ! " /

* *"

' * , 2 * " /

* "

/ , , " * ,

* , , * * * *

" / * , *

*"

Preface iii Summary vii Contents xii

1 Introduction 2

1.1 Motivations 2

1.1.1 Counterterrorism as risk management 4 1.1.2 Counterterrorism measures and civil liberties 6

1.2 Research questions 9

1.3 Limitations of this thesis 11

1.4 Structure of the thesis 12

2 Setting the Scene 14

2.1 The case: Norway 15

2.2 The Norwegian construction of security 15 2.2.1 Norwegian security prior Second World War 16 2.2.2 Norwegian security after the Second World War 17 2.2.3 Norwegian security during the Cold War 18

2.2.4 The end of the Cold war 19

2.2.5 Counterterrorism during the Cold War 19 2.3 Terrorism as a security threat in Norway 23

2.4 Reflections on the context 25

3 Theoretical approach 26 3.1 Terrorism as a social-political construct 26 3.1.1 Assumption of terrorism defines counterterrorism measures 30

3.1.2 The study of terrorism 30

3.2 Risk management perspectives 33

3.2.1 Risk governance 36

xiii

3.2.2 Reflectionsontheriskmanagementandriskgovernanceframework

40

3.2.3 Differentrationalesforthinkingaboutrisks 42 3.3 ApproachingthefieldofDiscourseAnalysis 44

3.3.1 Thepowerofdiscourses 45

3.3.2 Storylinesanddiscoursecoalitions 47

3.3.3 Discourseinstitutionalization 49

3.4 Theoreticalimplications 49

4 Methodologicalapproach 52

4.1 Approachingthefieldofterrorismriskdiscourses 52

4.2 Datacollection 57

4.3 Dataanalysis 63

4.4 Researchquality 66

5 Results 71

5.1 Resultsfromthearticles 72

5.2 Theoverallstudyofterrorismriskdiscourses 73 5.3 Howhastheterrorismriskphenomenonbeenunderstoodand

conceptualizedintheNorwegiancontext? 73 5.3.1 Theoveralltrendsintheframingofterrorismrisk 74

5.3.2 Thediscoursecoalitions 76

5.4 Havethechangesintheterrorismriskdiscoursescontributedto legitimizingimplementationsofcounterterrorismmeasures? 78 5.4.1 Institutionalizationoftheoverallframingofterrorismrisk 79 5.4.2 Institutionalizationofthediscoursecoalitions 80 5.5 Whathavebeentheargumentsbehindtheimplementationsof

counterterrorismmeasuresinNorway? 82

5.6 Whatroledoesriskbasedthinkingplayinthepublicterrorismrisk

discourses? 83

6 Discussion 84

6.1 Thepowertodefineterrorismrisk 84

xiv

6.2 Istheomnipresentsocietalthreatsetofstorylinesareflectionof

changesintheterrorismthreat? 87

6.3 Norwegianterrorismriskdiscoursesincontext 88 6.4 Reflectionsonriskbasedthinkingandterrorism 89 6.5 ThetrajectoryoftheNorwegianterrorismriskdiscourses 91 6.6 ReflectionsontheArgumentativeDiscourseAnalysis 92 6.7 Reflectionsontheassumptionsofthisstudy 93

7 Conclusions 95

7.1 Overallconclusionsofthestudiesperformed 95

7.2 Futureresearchneeds 96

References 99

PartII 117

ListofArticles 119

&#

1 Introduction

/ 0 A * ;

" * ;

*, "

?H , , *, <4, ?D -,I,9*,J, ="/

"

<?@=, A , * ,

"?@

A * B * 2

* * * * K " / * ?@, , "

C *

**

?@"/?@* *B "

/ *

*"

1.1 Motivations

# ; , 4 A

*

* B "/

, * <6, :, J . , H=" / ( + 4A

*"/, B

;" *

G

(society’s ability to [….] maintain critical social functions, to protect the health of the citizens and to meet the citizen’s basic requirements in a variety of stress situations” < - &,

< 2 =5L= A * , ,"*",*;<

-&, $="

A # B ( )

*+ L, * , *

"/,"#

* )

**

, * ,

*;*"

A * * , # *

"A#B $,#

"'*

B,2*

")2

* * " / * ?@, 0* 2

* " / B , *"

40,&'#2 * * *

!"

L

1.1.1 Counterterrorism as risk management

) * * , *

< , G="/

2*

" /

#2*"

9 A **

* ,?@"

# , , 2 *

** . 5 “Risk management, a strategy for helping policymakers make decisions about assessing risks, allocating resources, and taking actions under conditions of uncertainty, has been endorsed by Congress and the President as a way to strengthen the nation against possible terrorist attacks.” <

9 6, E5G=" 2 ; * ,0,;

* ", * 2*

0

"

?@*;

* <.* J '*, ?D I &, =" / 0*

;*<1, DC, $D , ="

3 , C < $=

( * + A , *5 (It brings home the potential ungovernability of modern societies and how those with little power can work cheaply and effectively to destroy”<C $5GLH="

E

* *

" 9 < E=

* * "

/ * ?@, * 2 ,*

<J9, E, %DJ M , ?D J &*, ?D J A, %DJA, $DN, $="/

, * *

* ,

* <1*J/, $D.*J'*, ?D , %=" /

*0*"

A

* <1, ??, ???D 9, ?%LD

&, L=" & < L=

* * " ) * *;

" ) * , *" * &, (risk management organizes what cannot be organized, because individuals, corporations and governments have little choice but to do so+ <&, L5 ="

4 , D 0,

"

.*'*< %=

?@ * " 3* &, * * , *

*, * "

/

* <1, ?D .*, , $D .* J '*, ?D I &, D

$

JA, $="# # *

*" # * 0

**"

,20 *

* * "

/ , *

* " # , D, ,,**

* < J , D'J:, H="/*

***"/, * <1*, ="

0, * , " 9 * * ! , * 2 *" * 1, *

* *

<1, ?="

1.1.2 Counterterrorism measures and civil liberties

/ * I, , I"

21!32

/ * "

" , 2" / 2 ,

H

, 2 * , * "

* *

* * * * <1*

J /, $D ., D 9" J A, $D 6 , LD M , L="

* * * * * <, LD , %D , N, J , E="

! 2 <, 1!8, J M, ="

'*;CK' ) ' &/)#6/

* <4, ED J A, $=" , * * * , * < J 9, ED J M , HD J A, %D N, $="

* * * ,

*"/

* * * , * , !, *" 9

* * , ?@" , ;

*?@*

* * "/ *

%

2 * 0* ;

* * , , * ; *

*"

A*,C3< %= * *,*"/

A?@

* 0"/0 * * , 0"/"3, ,

", * " / * * , *"

' * , * , * ,

*,

"#

, * !

*"#?@

,*0"

0, " . , D * *

?

, <-, EDI, EDJ.*, H="

1.2 Research questions

C * * ?@,

* ;"

?@<'*2 J ., ED . J I;, GD A* J N, GDNJA*, H="/

0, * "/

" / , * , , <1*, D 4, ?D' , H="

#,

?@ <, HD )!, IO*, J 3, ="

?@, * D

*, 2,

* , , *;

"

',**

<)!, IO*, J 3, ="

**

<* ' , %D )! , D )!, IO*, J 3, D /*7, H=" # , # * ; *

* * " / * * ! " # , *

" / * * **

* *

" / ;*

*

* *"

/*

,

?@

!"#

?@,#* * "

1 * ??G2 H, # *

* * * *;*"

, * *, # * 2 *

"

/ * 0 5

• .

;F

• . *

*;*

F

• A *

F

• A2*

F

1.3 Limitations of this thesis

/ 2 ,

". , "

*B "

* *;

*?@"

, , * " / # B , * * "

* # ,#**

* " . , , ,,"

,!"

/,,

",,

" # *

*,

"/

"/

B

" # , " / , , , # "

# , 2 *

*,# * 2 *" . , ! * 2 *

"

1.4 Structure of the thesis

/ " & # * * ,

*"&#

2 * * *

"/,&

",&#;*

"

&##5

" -, " .", J !7, 6" < =" ) /5 M&A9F/#

' ) " Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines"ML<=5

?HP$"

" -,"."< H="/*??$2 $5*" #/"

J-"C"M<C"=,Risk, Reliability and Societal Safety.

Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2007.<"EH?2E%$=,/3,I"

G" -, " .", J !7, 6" < ?=" / *

*"#)"1Q,4"9J

" <C"=,Reliability, Risk and Safety. Theory and Applications<"$E2HL="/J3,I"

4. -, " ." <=" * 4"

G

E" -, " .", J !7, 6" <=" / * 6 4/"

6. -,".",J!7,6"< ="B

* "#*

The International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management 2011 and Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012".,3"

L

2 Setting the Scene

A

"40,*

,, , <1*, ="/

* !

?@" . , " /

<.!,??G="/,

*, ?? B " / *

* ; " /

**

* " / ,,*"/

B " # ,#

" / * D * &

*

" / <.!, ?="

1 R& 7*!S&

T+, (&!S&

T+"5@@""@@G$@2!2@

E

2.1 The case: Norway

"

*

" ' , , , *

" * * , 2 "

/* **, * *

<4 J IO*, L, $=" /

". ,*,#

"

2.2 The Norwegian construction of security

#? E, $ ' , * " ,

** A, 2* " / A

*B**5 , , * *, *,

*, , , <C, ., J /!8, G=" 4 , B**, ,,

*"*B

* C " / * ' * * * * * * 2 <*, $="

/*; * C " /

* (/ + * * * C " / *

$

* C <C, ., J /!8, G="

C, * *" /

**

, , 2 * * </ , G, E=" . , B , 2*

K"

2.2.1 Norwegian security prior Second World War

** ? E,

*"

3 ? E ** A A, * 9 1" / * * ,91 <:, ="

* I*

"/ I*

9 I*

*", " ' * , * , *

"/

**C"?G , , * *" A 9 ??L ,

". ,:** , , * A AD

H

,!

*<C*, D/, L="

2.2.2 Norwegian security after the Second World War

, * , (* * *+ ?LE2?L%,

* A

<), =" * , 3**

" / 4; ?L%

B "

/6, * /6"1*,

"/

* * * * C A"//6

"3, 2 /6" , *

*"/2* *

*/6 , B : &

<:, D*, $="

/ A A

*,* B

* * C <:, ="

AA,*( *?+"

,*, ?H "/*

/6

&B"/(

+ " /

%

; <-, $=

2.2.3 Norwegian security during the Cold War

'* 4 A, * ,2 " ! /6 *,!

* 4, "

/ * * , /6E*

<9O*, H="#,

* * #* "

"/

* 4 A ;

* * , * 4

**<I,??$="

C * 4 A ; * * , , " /

*; * 4 A" # ?H *

*AA

",*

;

*;" / * ?% ?? ,

<:, ="

?

2.2.4 The end of the Cold war

/ 4 A * " 3 ?L?, * " 3 <), ="/4A *

* B " /

*B*

;" / , *

"/

* , ! * ! *')

# *

<-&,< 2 =="

?% **?? , * * * " / * * " / , &

#* ,!"#

**

, * <4 J IO*, HDIO*J*, $="

2.2.5 Counterterrorism during the Cold War

'*4 A, "

* ,

) 4"

#**,

* A A, '

#* "

* ?EE, &

<1* J C,??%="

/ A A

**

" / &

*?GH, * * *

* ?G?

9 " '*

A A, * "

/ ** C A A A, **

* ,

**?LH"#,,4A *" # 4*

& ,"/

* * ?LH 4" 6

!,***

*, * *;

* A A" , /6***;

* 4 ! D , C 4 " / 4; ?L% : A

?E *,

**A*

<1*JC,??%="

/?LE;, &

"*

* ?$ ?H *,*

4A,0

&

* " / I

* *4A,

*&

#* <1* J C,

??%D 1, ?%HD 1 J !, ??ED ., ??HD -, -8*,J!,??D)J,??H="

4C,&

" *

*

?H "#&

*,*

<1*JC,??%="

?H,&

* " / C <C4=

, " / &

B " # ?H ,

"

, * , * *, , ,

" # ?H$*

*

<#="

& * ,

*,"

# ?HH CB A C

"/

*?H "#,9 1, A 9 ** ,

* * & I 6*;<&I6=#)<#)="#?H

?% ,B* &

* , I, # #0" # ?%

& #

&**", *, 0*"

, * &

, 4 A * * " # , &

&***

"

/ & B B

* * , " / #

* , , &

!"#

?HG ,

* " / &

B * 0" # ?? * 9 A,

* * , &

,

**

" A , *,;

& * *

G

*"0, *

*",

* * * * ; * 4 A" / ??$ <I,

??$="0, &

2 4A"

2.3 Terrorism as a security threat in Norway

/ ,***

?? " C * &

B * , "

<C*, =". , * * * C ,

* , 9, 9 1 <* J C*, %="AA,

! , * C"

*, * *

<*JC*, %="11*/8 ?HH" / *

?H?"0 ?%E, * * " '* ?% , *

**0,

*&&;*

"/ 2

**<#="

L

& * * " I * >

/ ?$H <1 J )*, ?="* I* IB

<1* J C, ??%=" * * *, ** * " / *, 1;, *

*?% ?? "

&

" # ?$E * 6"#?%

6 * D " 6

* ?? "

* :<C*, ="

"

** ?HG , ??G A *,

* )B ,

* <* J C*, %=" , !* ?H?, ?%E, ??G, ??L, ??$

<C*, ="

/ "#?HG * " # ?H? I

**C*#

4' *"#IB , #), C/ A 9 ,

!<IJ, G="

/***

* " / CU#/ !, ! ;, **

E

; <1!8*, ??%D 1!8* J 4, ???, ED 1!8*, .!, J :, =" /

! *, ; * * "

2.4 Reflections on the context

/ 4 A, ;

" , *** * *" / , , B " ' &

, "

*,2*

,9 *AA, ! /6 "

* * *

!"

1 B **

, * * 4A"A4A C ,**

C"A*,2*

/6 C , ! * 4 A"

*

"

$

3 Theoretical approach

/ " # , 222 "

/, # * 2*"#

* "

3, # * ' <.!

??E= *

"

1 * , # *" ,

*,*

<I &, =" / "

3.1 Terrorism as a social-political construct

/!

" /

*(B B *+ V

<1!8*, E="/

" -* <?%%=, ; , * " 1 ,

**5

(/ 2* , <2= , * , , , 2 2 * *"

/ * <* = <

H

*= * , *

*" /2 2 <*;=, <= , * * <<==, *

*,*,*,*

, , * *W

<J-*,?%%5%="

/ ; * D "

* "/

*, *<1,??%="

1 , A*,&;,.2.< L=

5 WTerrorism is a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role“

<A*, &;, J .2., L5H%$=" / * * ,*, , " / * "

/!**"

/ , *

<I0,?%$="

* , * , *, !*, * ", , * <, LD J-*,?%%DA*", L=". , **

, , !

%

;, "

3, ! " 1 * , ! *

* " / "/

* <9*, HD -, - , 9*, J , D , 9*, J -, ?=" / (+*!*

*"'*

* * , *

!*"

, , * * , !

* " / 3 ) " . , *

"/*

3 )

* D

* ,!

<., D/, ="/,

* , *, "

/**

* ,

"3&&;

<9*, HDNJ'*,??$="

/, <, ??=" / , * "

A ;*

?

, ,

*, , *;

* * <1,??%="

/ * * **

* , *D 0,

"##

, ! , * , "#

,**

* * 2 * * !

* " # #

** ,

* * *

*"

'

* *;

,1!8*< E= **

*** "1*

< L=

*, **

" **

*

*;

"

G

3.1.1 Assumption of terrorism defines counterterrorism measures

/ 0 *"4 (How we conceive of terrorism determines to a great extent how we go about countering it, and what resources–money, manpower, institutional framework, time horizon–we devote to the effort”

<4, ?5?=" * ,

"#

,*<-, E="

# ,

* !" # !, *,

<4, ?="/

# ?@ " / " / # " * ,#

"

# 2 *, *

#222"

3.1.2 The study of terrorism

" * -, I, 9*,J< =,*2 * * , * A

**"

G

6*, 2 * , , *,

!*, * <N J '*, ??$="

?$

?H A * * 2;

"0**A ?H , A

*

**2*

*<J4,

??GDJ-*,?%%="0,

*AB * A

* <4, ??%=" 1 , * * * * A"/A A "

* )' *, , <. J 6X ,?%?DJ, ?D), HD),??H="

/A ?@

#2 * <), HD , L="# ?@,!**

C" / 4 / )/</)/= * , "

/)/ 5@@"""@@@

G

! * *** " # C, *, ^G"*, ,* ,*

, * ,* "

* * , !

"

/ *

*<-, ED I, ED J .*, H=" , " I, :< $=

" 3 , *

"1*

*

*, *

"

1***, **

* **

2 *, , , (*+

"

GCBH*55@@""@H@@Y"

GG

3.2 Risk management perspectives

/ * * !

* 5 <1, ), , J

!7, ="/

! ,

" & 2 , * !*" 4 , , !*

<1,?%?D23,??D)??="

/

*!

<), ??%, %D N J /29, $=" / **

!

<(+= * ;" / ! , *

! " / ! "

; (+ "

" C*

, , " / 0 * < = ! * B < = , * 0 < ?? , ??GD , G=" # , *

"

/ ; *

GL

* <, 1, J I, D '* J A , ?%D 3*, ?%%D 23, ??D /, ???D N J /29, $="

* " / 1

* , * 0 *

* * < J ), =" / <A, ??L=" / 0 * " * , B

< , G, %, =" # , * "#*

,,**

0 " # 1 , !*, "

& * " ) * ** *

**"

# 1 , * , 22 <1, ?E?=" 3*

2*"

GE

Decision problem Decision alternatives

Analyses and evaluations:

Risk analysis and

decision analysis Managerial Review and judgments

Decision Stakeholder

values Goals criteria and preferences

3*512*< , G=

/ * , "*" * " * , ,***

, , , **

" / * , * ,

* * " / * * 2

* , * * * *< , G="

C * *

! !*

2*,!

" 3, ! *

" /

G$

" /, 0 * 3* #

" ! , B * * * " / * , !*(

+ "

3.2.1 Risk governance

) * ; * * * *" / * * 0 <), :, J M , =" *

*,

* L " / * *,*, * * 0 *

<MJ), ="

# , * * , * " / *

* " / * * 2 *"

<1, 4*, J I 23, HD . J -, HD ) ", D ) J ), $D M J ), ="

)*

* *,

*,"

/ ***

2* " / * * ,,

GH

" * *, * * " / , ,

< J ), D ' , GD : J ), D ), %, %, %D), %="/*;

* * * <5@@"*"*@=" / *

*;**

*

*"

# * , , , "

/* 5 2,,;@ *, " A ,

* 0 (*+ * " / ! * * D * * * * " / *

; D*"

, 2

;@ , * "

3** "

G%

Assessment Sphere:

Generation of Knowledge Management Sphere:

Decision on & Implementation of Actions

Risk Characterisation

•Risk Profile

•Judgement of the Seriousness of Risk

•Conclusions & Risk Reduction Options Risk Evaluation

•Judging the Tolera- bility & Acceptabiliy

•Need for Risk Reduction Measures

Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement Pre-Assessment:

•Problem Framing

•Early Warning

•Screening

•Determination of Scientific Conventions

Pre-Assessment

Risk Appraisal:

Risk Assessment

•Hazard Identification & Estimation

•Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment

•Risk Estimation Concern Assessment

•Risk Perceptions

•Social Concerns

•Socio-Economic Impacts

Risk Appraisal Risk Management

Implementation

•Option Realisation

•Monitoring & Control

•Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice Decision Making

•Option Identification & Generation

•Option Assessment

•Option Evaluation & Selection

Risk Management

Communication

3*5/* <), %=

4 * * "/* **

* ,"",3*

G<:J), D %="

G?

Complexity Epistemological Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk

Uncertainty Reflective Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward

Ambiguity Participative Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences

Simple Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable Agency Staff

Dominant risk characteristic Type of participation Actors

Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Scientists/

Researchers

Affected stakeholders

« Civil society »

Scientists/

Researchers

Scientists/

Researchers Affected stakeholders

As the level of knowledge changes, so also will the type of participation need to change

3*G5 <) %=

3 , ,

* 0 , * * "

**!

*" 40, *" )

* 5 "

"/

*"

/*0

; , , * ** * *20

"*

, 2 " / <2= @

* <) ", =" ) * "

A

L

0 , * "/,**

, , * * , *

"

3.2.2 Reflections on the risk management and risk governance framework

) * * * * *

" * *

*,,*

<), %="/

* *

* * 2*

*, , ,

" * * * , 2* ,

*"

/ * *,*

! ! *" . , * <-, ?? D A, ??$=" 3,

!2*

" # ,

<!7J*, ="C * * * **

**

L

,

*"

/ 2 * * * * 2* "

' , * , 0

****

" ' * *,

*!*

,"3*"/*

D

*, "

( +, 0" / , , * *

*, ! * "

*

"/

* <3 !*, ??%=" 40, * 0"

/ 2 * *" / *

**,*;

*

")**

**"/

*,,! "

L

3.2.3 Different rationales for thinking about risks

)** **,,

*2*"#,

* **, , * < , L="*

< L=< , G=, 2 *,

*, * / "

) * , , , 2 , , *, , *

" / , , , * <"*",="

Holistic Analytic

5&2 I*5)<

=

I*

1 ( +

1

C*, ,

C, ,

*56

*562

2 5(*

*+

)0! *

/5 / 2 *, *, *

< L=

1 ** *

*, *

LG

" /

* **

* " / * , , ,

" /

* <N, $=" / *, * ! " &

! 0 <:,

&*, J , GD ), %D , , L=" C

* ,

; * " A * , * <, , G=" 40,

*"

/ **

*"

,". ,

* D0,

* " ) * , * , *

* , " ) < %=

* * " . * ,

*"#, *

*

"

LL

3.3 Approaching the field of Discourse Analysis

) * *

**

" . , <.! J , %D ), 1, J 4, ="/

" ' " / ,,"#

,

*"

1 * ** *

* " / * **

D**

( + <, $, $="/*

* " I** * * <A -8* J &, =" / **

** * * " # , **

"

4 , **

*

" / **

!

*"#****

* ,

***!"

/ **0#

, / * *

LE

<3,?H?D3J 9, ?% D -, I, 9*, J , =" / * *;

" ( + * ?? " / * * " /

*; , *

" / , **

<., ??%D :*, GD I0, GD I,

???D, G="/, <?@=*C*

*; * ( + <' , L=" / ?@

(*+ "/

* ( +

* *

* "

3.3.1 The power of discourses

"/

* , <1* J I, ?%%D 1, G="

*, ** *

*,,"/

; * ,**

;"

' * <', HD 3*, ??D A -8* J

&, =" /

L$

"'*< H=*

"I*

**

* "

2 ,

"3*<??=*

2 "

4 2 "/ * ** <'!, %D ', H="C * , * ,

*<', H="

# , # * " #

* " # * * , # * * , *

**"#

** , # * " # ,

" * 3, *

*" 3

*

* ! <3, ?H?D 3 J 9,

?% =" / ,**

" ' 3K , ,"

LH

.! <??G, ??E= * ' 3

*;".!(an ensemble of notions, ideas, concepts and categorizations through which meaning is ascribed to social and physical phenomena, and that is produced and reproduced in turn of identifiable sets of practices”

<.!, ?5$ ="/,,*;

D , <.!, ??G=" # * ' , " # * *

"

.!;3**, ! , * "

* , * "

/ * ' "

* , <1 J 1;,?H DI, E=". , " &

" 3 , * <, ??%D 9, ?%LD , DA-8*J&, ="

3.3.2 Storylines and discourse coalitions

* .!, " / ,

"*, , , ,

L%

",

"

, 2" / ; , .! * .V <??G= 1* <??$=

" .!

(narratives on social reality through which elements from many different domains are combined and that provide actors with a set of symbolic references that suggest a common understanding+

<.!, ??E5$=" * *

"#*,

* *

"/(+

* , (+"'

*, *

"C *(+, * * ! "

/*,

***"/

B D

"

' * *

*"/ *

**"

' , *

L?

, *

"

3.3.3 Discourse institutionalization

A ; , " # ,

; ,,*, " ' ;

* " ; " # , * ; "

# ;" /

"/

0 " /

<.!, ?="#,

*;*"

3.4 Theoretical implications

/** * "/

* ,

**<", ="

/ *

"

, 2 " # * ! * * , # ;

* ' <.!, ??G, ??ED .! J

E

A*, G=" * '

* , ; **

"3*,#

,

*"

/ #

"#

"/

#!*"/

,

* *

"

# * * "/

#2*". , ! ;

"/#!

*, *

* ".2

* F#2

*, F

/*

* *

* " 1 *

* ' , # * * " #

E

" /

"#*,

# * '

**

* * **

*"

E

4 Methodological approach

/ * * " /

"/*0D

• .

;F

• . *

*;*

F

• A *

F

• A2*

F

#,#*

" # * # & / , # *"

4.1 Approaching the field of terrorism risk discourses

* B *, * 0

<9 J 98*, =" 4 G

* " 2 ,# *** ' *"#

;*

!

EG

"#* '

*;!

*<3, D.!,??E="40,

** * " 1 * ,*

,*

"

/ **

"I** , * ,** , * * "

. , * **" / 2

; * " / *

**"

/** <-, L, ED I, ED J .*, H=" . , ****

,

** **

" , *;

" . ,

?@

!"

, *

"/

< J ), =" * * **

* *

** "

EL

3 ;5 , , " / # * B " / ,

* * <3, ??GD 3 J 9, ?% D . J 6X , ?%?=" 6 ,*

** <1, LD-, LD&JI, G="/

*

*<I, ED9"JA, $D"&",?%?D!8*, DA,??HDNJ '*,??$="

*

* ?@, <C*

J 6 , D &, , J C*, D ), ?D , %="

/**

* 2 *

"# # (;;+

*,""3*L"

EE

Risk based thinking: Article no. 1

The Norwegian understanding of terrorism risk

Research discourses Media discourses Official discourses

Perspectives on the terrorism risk and counterterrorism

measures in the Norwegian terrorism

research

Perspectives on terrorism risk and arguments behind

counterterrorism measures in Norwegian

media

Perspectives on the terrorism risk in the Norwegian official communication on

terrorism

Article 2 Article 3 and 4 Article 5

Aviation

There has been a dramatic change in aviation security after 9/11.

How do the changes in this sector relate to the societal discourses?

Article 6

3*L56

)2* *

# " /

" / * , * * "

40, **

# * 0 * " /

#"

/ , * * *"

E$

/ **

**

2 " /

"

.! <??G, ??E, ?=

;,"

/* , * , "

,

*!**?@, ;

*"

/, , " C * 0 " /

; D , 2"#

2 ,

*

; "

/ * * *;

?@" # , * ?@" / ??G2 H" # $, ?@"?@

B , " / *

* H"C *#

EH

, ??G" # ??G

* " /

*, " / ,

*,#***

?? #

?@"/

, * ?@, # ; * 4 A, ;

"

4.2 Data collection

' **" /

" 6 , *,

<A -8* J &, =" . , * # ,#*"

**

, *

" / * D,#

" / # ,

"0,#

# * * 0"

E%

/*

B",#

"##

,##

#, , # * # ")

*, " / * *

"/

* (4 + * * ; * " ! ,!

,

"

3 , # * "

, M 9*

*2 " / * , * %L LL <M 9*= GHG$G

< * * = 0^L" 9 * , B * * * ;" /, # 0 B *

"

<5@@" 2"=, # ,

"

; " /

L'0 %"

5@@*""@FZJ*Z J0#'Z?

E?

, ! !

<I, E=" / " * , ,#

**

"

/ " # , # , ,

* " 6

* * * *

** " 40, * **

B

"#

2

"#B<5@@*"=*

terrorism" / * B

<5@@"*!*"=

" / , # , , * *

" , *

"'*

"

# ,#

,

" # , * "

$

. , # , * * , * , *

"/

6)#:2!^E *" / ! # " / *

* * **

?@" . , # , 2 0 #

* "#

, # * ,

*"/

* * 0

"*,#

# , # * * * * !" C

* , # **

, , * *

; "

/ $ 2 %"/, #, , , # * ' ) #" # , , #

"

E5@@""@

$

*

**?@"/*

?@

* " . , , ,"/*

" /"

Methodological approach

Article 1Article2Article 3 and 4Article 5Article 6 Sector/) Time period??$2 $??G2 H??G2 H?? 2 Main research data

I L$ L

HEG ! *

$?% *

6* ? HH * Selection criteria *

& *, ??

*

' , * 2

* , * * ?? /56

$

$G

4.3 Data analysis

/ * '

* * ; *

* <.!, ??G=" * ' ; " C * ,B , , "

, 0 # ;,

"

/ ' < = "

* , " ' , , "

0 < , = <

*; =" / 0 * " / , " / "

0, <

= "

/ #

;22 , *

*"

$L

* ' ** * * " /

** *, *

* * " ' <= D <=

D <G=

<.!??E="

The discourse coalition approach applied to the topic of terrorism risk

"

**

"

*

G"/

.

F

A FA B ,

*,F .

**

F A F

#5 :

A

*F

#

;

*

"

/G5/5

# ,

; * <:, ??%=" 4 * ,0

"4* * " / 0 22"

$E

3, #

" ) 0 " 0 ,B

***,, *

"* ' * 2

"#

, # *

*"#

* *

*"*

!,# *

"#*, , , * *,

***

" / * * 2

"

, #"1 * ' , ***, * ; " A " * ,

"

#L$<"*"$G=,#

*

$$

" #

* * ' , *

; " /

"

"#

* "

* "

* * * " #

*; , #

"/

" # *;

*

*"

* , # 2 * * * " # 2 , # ,

*!

"

4.4 Research quality

* 0, *

*" ., 0 , , ! 0

<';JI, GDIJ9,?%ED ,

$H

="#?%EI9 0**

0 , **

* 0

*"

, *,

*"

1 I 9B , , *, * * * " 0

* * B *

<B

=*"/,*, 0 *0, , @ * * 0" #, 0 <4 J /, $=" /

**

*" #

*,*

, " /

! , *

<A-8*J&, ="

/! **

"#, * " # , (+

B *

* "' , 2* , , *

"40,#

*

$%

* "

1 0,#

" M <', ="

6! * , , *

"C *

*! ,

* " A , *2 *2"

0 *, * "

0, # * I 9K# "

4 * , *

* * * <I J 9, ?%E=" # $

" * ' * **

2"40,# *

*2"

/* * " 1 * , # " C *

* '&

*, * 0" # , # *

" # , #

$?

* ,VV*

*"

/ *

<IJ9,

?%E=" I 9 * ,!*

*"#

" A * , # 2 " # * , * , *

;,#

* " / , # *

*"

', <I J 9,

?%E=" C * ;*

, # " 1 *

*,#

*

"#,#

*, * ,0 " * , *,

* , ,

"# , *,

"#

*0

* "1*,

"/

H

, "

4*

<I J 9,?%E="/**

* "

/ * " # , *

* ,*

", " . , *

# ;

*!"

C * # * , # ; 0 B " /, ,,, <', =" , , * , [B , , ,

* "

71

5 Results

I see this thesis as a cross-case analysis of the different sectors where the aim is to investigate the general trends in the Norwegian terrorism risk discourses. Thus, the focus in this chapter will not be on the individual articles but on the overall study. As such, this chapter attempts to synthesize the findings of the articles. I will give a short presentation of the articles on which this thesis is based, but the main focus will be on the overall framing of terrorism as a risk to Norwegian society. This means that I will not go into details about the differences in how terrorism has been represented in the different sectors. For further presentation of the empirical data and the results of each individual article, please consult Part II of this thesis.

Even though the main goal of this study has been to investigate how the terrorism risk discourses have changed during the studied time period, the articles cover different aspects of the research aim and answer different research questions. Table 4 provides an overview of the research questions in this thesis and which articles that answer each question.

Research question Article no.

How has the terrorism risk phenomenon been understood and conceptualized?

1,2,3,4,5,6 Have the changes in the terrorism risk discourses

contributed to legitimizing implementations of counterterrorism measures?

1,2,3,4,5,6

What have been the arguments behind the implementations of counterterrorism measures?

4,5,6

What role has risk-based thinking played in the public discourse on terrorism risk?

1,2,4,6

Table 4: Relation between articles and research questions

H

5.1 Results from the articles

/ 2 * * " ' " . , " / 0*

*;, B *

"' 0"

* , * B * B " / !"

/

**"

* ?? **

, *, , * "

'* , * * "

/ ?@

, D 0,"/

* * " 4 ***

?? *0?@"

/ * * * " # * *

"

?@, * " /

*;

HG

* *" / , , " / *

!" / ?@ *

* *"/*, "

?@ ,

"4*

* , D , * C

" /

* *"

5.2 The overall study of terrorism risk discourses

/*, "

/ * * *

* * " /, * "

/ 04"

5.3 How has the terrorism risk phenomenon been understood and conceptualized in the Norwegian context?

/ * * * * * " C * ! * * , *

*

HL

*"#*

* * * " /, # * B**"

5.3.1 The overall trends in the framing of terrorism risk

** ?? , * " /

"#

, * *

* *

"

* *,

“Terrorism is political violence("/

, " / * ! *" / , ?? *

" / B , , "

4* *

**,

?? .

*?? ", , * 3

& " / * " *, * * * "

(the new threat

HE

landscape+,

*"/(the new threat landscape+

* 4 A

" . ,

***"/

"

/?@

,"/

*,"/, ?@

**"/

# , ,

* , " / , ,

*"/*

*B*"/

* ,*

, "

,**

"****

*" 0,

*"

C * , " C * ?@, "

) ?@,0

* * * # "

H$

/,, * "

5.3.2 The discourse coalitions

/ *

* *, * ! " *

?\ ,*

* ;*

"