نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• لیلا مروتی ¹
• ارسلان قربانی ²
• سید علی منوری ³

¹ پژوهشگر پسادکتری روابط بین‌الملل دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

² استاد گروه روابط بین الملل، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

³ دانشیار گروه روابط بین‌الملل دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حادثه یازده سپتامبر با بسط دامنه‌ فعالیت‌های تروریستی در مقیاس جهانی، توجه کنشگران نظام بین‌الملل را به تهدیدات برآمده از تروریسم معطوف نمود. این مقاله درصدد توضیح و تبیین گفتمان‌های ضدتروریستی آمریکا و چین در چارچوب منطق نتیجه و تناسب می‌باشد. پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که چگونه می‌توان با توجه به منطق نتیجه و تناسب، نحوه‌ مواجهه‌ آمریکا و چین را با پدیده تروریسم تبیین نمود؟ در پاسخ به این پرسش، مقاله مدعی است که گفتمان ضدتروریستی آمریکا در قالب گفتمان نتیجه‌‌محور و در مقابل گفتمان ضدتروریستی چین در قالب گقتمان تناسب ‌محور قابل ارزیابی می‌باشند. یافته اصلی مقاله این است که رویکرد ضدتروریستی آمریکا بر منطق نتیجه حاکم است بر این مبنا تصمیمات ضدتروریستی آمریکا در عرصه‌ سیاست خارجی معطوف به کسب نتیجه‌ مطلوب حتی به قیمت استفاده از جنگ و زور نظامی می‌باشد. در مقابل، چین در خصوص مبارزه با تروریسم رویکرد چندجانبه و تعاملی با کشورهای دیگر، رژیم‌سازی و عضویت در سازمان‌ها و نهادهای بین‌المللی را در دستور کار قرار داده است. بر این اساس، منطق حاکم بر اقدامات ضد تروریستی چین منطق تناسب است. این مقاله با استفاده از روش تحلیل گفتمان و نظریه‌ لاکلا و موف نگاشته شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• یازده سپتامبر
• گفتمان ضد تروریسم آمریکا
• گفتمان ضد تروریسم چین
• منطق نتیجه
• منطق تناسب

موضوعات

• روابط بین الملل

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Counterterrorism Discourse of the United States and China: The Logic of Consequences Appropriateness

نویسندگان [English]

• Leila Morovati ¹
• Arsalan Ghorbani Sheikhkeshin ²
• Seyed Ali Monavari ³

¹ Postdoctoral Researcher, International Relations, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

² Professor, Department of International Relations, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

³ Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
The September 11 attacks expanded the scope of terrorist activities on a global scale, thus redirecting the attention of actors in the international system toward the threats posed by terrorism. This incident is widely regarded as a turning point in the history of international relations, to the extent that global developments are often interpreted in terms of two distinct periods: pre- and post-September 11. The attacks transformed the scope, geography, nature, and conceptualization of terrorism, revealing a new form of terrorism operating at the global level. In this sense, post-September 11 terrorism transcended traditional boundaries of time and space and emerged as a truly global phenomenon. As a result, actors in international relations were compelled to adopt specific approaches and strategies to confront terrorism in order to protect themselves from the threats posed by international terrorism and to maintain their security. Accordingly, each actor’s counterterrorism strategy and discourse can be analyzed within the framework of the logic of consequences–appropriateness. Broadly speaking, the behavior of actors in the international system is governed by either consequence-oriented logic or appropriateness logic. In this respect, the present research aimed to explain the counterterrorism discourses of two major powers in the international system—namely, the United States and China—within the framework of the logic of consequences–appropriateness. The main research question is: How can the logic of consequences–appropriateness explain the ways in which the United States and China confront the phenomenon of terrorism?
Literature Review
The relevant literature can be divided into three main categories: a) the studies focusing on U.S. counterterrorism measures, b) the research examining China’s counterterrorism policies, and c) the studies analyzing terrorism through the lens of discourse analysis. For example, Tanner and Bellacqua (2016), in the report China’s Response to Terrorism, analyzed China’s evolving approach to terrorism and examine how terrorist threats are evaluated, defined, and understood within the frameworks of domestic borders and foreign policy. In “International Law and the ‘War on Terrorism’: Post-9/11 Responses by the United States and Asia Pacific Countries,” Marks (2016) argues that the United States has used the concept of terrorism as a tool to justify intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Li (2019), in “Fighting the ‘Three Evils’: A Structural Analysis of Counter-Terrorism Legal Architecture in China,” emphasizes that China has consistently framed the fight against the “three evils”—terrorism, extremism, and separatism—as a foundational element of its political, legal, and cultural system. Finally, Gruenewald et al. (2019), in “American Jihadi Terrorism: A Comparison of Homicides and Unsuccessful Plots,” argued that following the September 11 attacks, counterterrorism and the prevention of terrorist attacks became the primary priority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Materials and Methods
This research adopted a qualitative methodology within a post-positivist framework. The library research was used to collect the data from various resources. Moreover, the study employed Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis framework. According to Laclau and Mouffe, discourses play a central role in shaping the identities of actors. These discursively constructed identities define the intellectual and political boundaries between self and other. In turn, actors’ identity representations reflect and shape their interests, preferences, and priorities in both foreign and domestic policy domains.
Results and Discussion
To examine the logic governing the behavior of international actors, it is necessary to engage with metatheoretical approaches in international relations. The current analysis focused on two major metatheoretical perspectives: positivism and interpretivism. Positivists in international relations view international phenomena and events as mechanical and calculable. From this perspective, international actors are rational and self-interested entities that constantly assess the consequences of their actions by weighing costs and benefits. Rationalists argue that the interests of states and other actors are pre-social, and that actors in international interactions seek to maximize their gains. Accordingly, rationalists conceptualize the international actor as homo economicus. In their view, the anarchic international system constitutes a strategic environment in which states are primarily concerned with the outcomes of their behavior—an approach referred to as the logic of consequences. By contrast, interpretivists reject the notion of international actors as purely mechanical or instrumental. Instead, they regard actors as socially embedded beings whose interests are shaped by their identities. These identities are constructed through social interaction and discourse. As a result, the interpretivist approach is dynamic and discursive. Its proponents argue that international actors behave in accordance with their own beliefs, values, and cultural understandings in the international arena. From this perspective, the international actor is conceptualized as a social man who follows the logic of appropriateness, with behavior deriving from beliefs, mindsets and values.
Conclusion
With regard to the counterterrorism actions of the United States and China, the main finding of this research is that the American counterterrorism approach is grounded in its hegemonic position and the notion of American exceptionalism and operates within the framework of the logic of consequences. U.S. counterterrorism decisions in foreign policy have primarily aimed at achieving desired outcomes through rational strategies, including the use of war and military force against so-called rogue states. By contrast, China has adopted a multilateral and interactive approach in cooperation with other countries and regions within its sphere of influence. Regime-building efforts, participation in international organizations and institutions, and multilateral security and defense agreements constitute key elements of China’s cooperative response to terrorism. China has generally acted in accordance with the rules and principles governing the international system, emphasizing respect for the principle of peaceful coexistence. Therefore, China’s counterterrorism approach can be understood as operating within the framework of the logic of appropriateness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• September 11
• America’s Counterterrorism Discourse
• China’s Counterterrorism Discourse
• Logic of Consequences
• Logic of Appropriateness