Toegangseisen
Admitted to HC Law.
Beschrijving
In this course, the phenomenon of terrorism will be discussed in detail: what are we actually talking about when we call something 'terrorism' or 'terror'? And what do we know about the approach to this phenomenon?
The course has an interdisciplinary approach, which means that we will not only view the phenomenon of terrorism , a complex problem, from a pure legal perspective. We will look at the development of terrorism and counterterrorism from a socio-criminological-legal perspective and unpack the consequences of common counterterrorist measures adopted post 9/11 on criminal law as well as on communities subjected to these changes. Extensive attention will also be paid to the role of discourse, politicization and securitization and thus the political and social charge of the phenomenon of terrorism and counterterrorism.
By means of weekly interactive seminars, we will delve into a different aspect every week, together with (international) guest lecturers. Whilst distinct countries will be used as illustrative case studies (e.g., the Netherlands, France, potentially Canada), the geographical focus will remain on the Global North, but the concepts/theories explored are also relevant in other geographical contexts. Specific attention will be devoted to the current situation in the European Union with regards to radicalization and (violent) extremism, to new forms of what can potentially be described as ‘extreme’ behavior (e.g., anti-institutionalism, sovereign movements) as well as phenomena which are deemed to precede radicalization (e.g., increased polarization of opinion in the online world) and the policy and legal responses accompanying these developments.
At the end of the course, the aim is for the students to have developed a critical perspective about (counter)terrorism. Moreover, students will be able to substantiate this critical output with evidence-based arguments that they will be able to share to distinct types of audiences.
Leerdoelen
After the course:
Students have a good understanding of the issues surrounding the definition and labels of terrorism and violent extremism. More specifically, they are aware that these terms are socially and politically loaded and are able to substantiate this;
Students can give different examples of terrorism and argue why these behaviors, from a legal perspective, can be labeled as such;
Students are familiar with and can explain various criminological and socio-legal theoretical concepts and frameworks covered during the course to make sense of the complex phenomenon of terrorism and the measures in place to fight it;
Students can provide illustrations of different ways in which terrorism and violent extremism are combated nationally and internationally, and what challenges are encountered in combating this in practice;
Students can critically reflect on the social implications of combating terrorism and violent extremism;
Students can take a position on one of the topics discussed regarding terrorism and counterterrorism, and know how to substantiate and defend this scientifically, using insights from various disciplines;
Students are able to develop these (critical) reflections in an evidence/research-based manner and can share them to diverse audiences.
Onderwijsvormen
Attendance and participation in this course is, of course, mandatory. As with all courses of HC Law. This, partly due to the character and structure of HC law and its courses, which therefore also have the status of practical exercises.
For a missed session, students will have to submit a mindmap to Dr. de Massol de Rebetz connecting the main concepts of the mandatory readings in a logical manner. More information on “concept mapping or mindmap” as an educational tool and helpful resources on how to do one will be provided on Brightspace.
Periode
OVERVIEW OF THE SEMINARS:
*The mandatory reading material and the planning of the course will be shared in due time via Brightspace.
Expectations reading load: maximum 3 articles (peer-reviewed) articles per seminar (with the possibility to add a potential additional resource in the form of a podcast/video).
*Note the dates, order and content will be adapted once I have a full overview of the schedule in order for me to ask to two (max three) guest lecturers for their availabilities and willingness to participate.
Seminar 1 – November 5
Introduction lecture on the contested and complex crime of terrorism in a “Risk Society”
Seminar 2 – November 12
Discourse, Law, and Power in Counterterrorism – introducing the What’s the Problem Represented to Be approach.
Interactive seminar introducing students to the notion of discourse from a critical sociological perspective. Necessary theoretical and methodological foundation for their final assignment.
Seminar 3 – November 19
Pre-emption, state of emergency and enemy penology: socio-legal perspectives on French counterterrorism
Seminar 4 – November 26
Causes of terrorism and violent extremism: Insights from (critical) criminology.
Deconstructing the linear path towards radicalization? The case of 764 / Co-lecture with Anne Jonker
Seminar 5 – December 3
Governing the Feed: Radicalization, illegal/harmful and toxic content, and the challenge for the EU lawmaker
Seminar 6 – December 10
Guest Lecture Anne Jonker – From yoga mats to Qanon, insights on conspiracy and conspirituality.
Seminar 7 – December 17
Group presentations on the basis of group assignment
Toetsing
The assessment for this course will take place in the form of a portfolio (pass/fail) with three distinct components. Each component (assessed with pass/fail) need to receive an overall PASS. One of the rationale behind the pass/fail format is to allow students to receive in-between feedback (see below) and adjust their work throughout the course on the basis of constructive comments. Therefore, student’s attitudes and reactions towards constructive feedback (and overall improvement) will be taken into careful consideration when doing the final pass/fail assessment.
I. Weekly critical short questions/reflections based on the literature - Brightspace
Every week, students will need to post 2 (critical) reflections/questions based on the weekly reading on Brightspace. These reflections/questions should be under 5 sentences. During class, we will vote as a group for one/two (maximum) insightful reflections/questions that trigger the most reactions. We will submit them as prompts to ChatGPT and will debate, nuance, and substantiate the AI answer in an evidence-based manner as a group in connection with the mandatory readings.
II. Counterterrorism policy: critique and redesign
In groups of X students constituted after the first seminar, you will have to deploy a critical, creative and analytical approach to existing counterterrorism policy or program (this includes for instance radicalization prevention campaigns or broader CVE policy/programs). This group assignment is evidence-based and involve an engaging and original oral presentation which will take place during seminar X.
Counterterrorism policy: critique and redesign
Each group must first choose an existing counterterrorism policy.
For the assignment the group must:
Critically analyze the policy/program/campaign’s assumptions, discourse, and theoretical underpinnings
Evaluate evidence of effectiveness, biases, and unintended harms
Design an alternative intervention grounded in different theoretical perspectives and research which also focus on potential legal outcomes and anticipate human rights critiques.
This assignment is designed to encourages critical thinking on the ‘so what?’ of theory, linking it to interventions and their social/legal consequences. The group critique and redesign need to be presented orally as a campaign (almost like a marketing like) pitch.
General requirements
Students must make use of scientific literature (at least 3 peer-reviewed articles which are not part of the mandatory reading material) supplemented by gray literature and media article(s). Presentations must be X min total (will be determined with the number of students in the class) and divide the time equally per student. The presentation should be engaging and could be directed at a group of citizens.
In-between feedback
On (intermediary date), each group should submit via email a plan of their presentation (in an A4) together with a short note one their choice of an existing policy/program. The description of their case should be clear together with a short note for each of the components described above. Written feedback will be given by (one week later after the initial date) the latest leaving more than one week to the students to adjust their presentations.
*Students will also have the possibility to discuss their choice of topic from an early stage during breaks.
III. Individual essay – Discourse Analysis of the Representation of Terroristic/Extreme Threats in Fiction
In this assignment, building upon the concepts and the methods covered during the course (e.g., WPR method), you will critically analyze how a threat is represented in a fictional narrative, such as a TV show, movie, or fictional book. Drawing from scientific articles of your choice as well as the mandatory reading materials, you will explore how the threat is constructed through discourse, imagery, and framing and reflect on the social and legal implications of that representation.
You will also engage with your material creatively by rewriting a key dialogue that you identify as interesting to shift the framing of the threat.
The assignment consists of four steps:
1. Selecting Your Material
Choose one of the following types of fictional material:
A TV show episode (examples: Homeland, the Looming Tower, Years and Years, Occupied, Le Bureau des Legendes (and its remake American version, Bodyguard etc.) – great to focus on non-US shows but the choice is yours.
A movie (examples: Four Lions, Arlington Road, Un prophete, ’71, Nocturama)
A fictional book (example: Submission, the Secret Agent, American War, Terrorist)
The material should feature:A clear portrayal of a terroristic, extreme, or violent threat;
ORA borderline portrayal that, in your view, could/should be framed as terroristic/extreme/radical, even if it is not explicitly labeled as such.
Note: your material can also be a comedic in nature. If you feel strongly about it, you might, after discussion with me opt for a video game too.
Briefly introduce your chosen material in your essay: explain what it is, why you chose it, and how it connects to the theme of threat representation. Make sure to add the full reference of your material.
- Discourse Selection and Analysis
Identify and analyze a specific discourse in the material that represents (or could represent) the threat. To help you in the identification and analysis, pay attention to:
Dialogue or monologues where characters discuss or refer to the threat.
Narrative techniques used to highlight or imply the threat, including visual and auditory cues (if applicable).
Body language and gestures that support the portrayal of the threat (e.g., power dynamics, aggression).
In your analysis, focus on how the language, framing, and imagery construct or leave room for constructing the threat. Consider for instance:Framing and language: How is the threat described or labeled (if at all)? Are metaphors, labels, or emotional appeals used to heighten, or downplay the threat? Does the language aim to evoke fear, panic, urgency, or uncertainty?
Visual or descriptive presentation: How are characters or events framed to reinforce or subtly suggest the threat (e.g., dark lighting, close-ups, tense music, threatening descriptions)?
Stereotypes and tropes: What kind of images or ideas are promoted? Are certain tropes or stereotypes used to define or imply the threat (e.g., outsiders, radicals, enemies)?
Underlying messages: What messages are conveyed (explicitly or implicitly) about the nature of the threat? How might the portrayal influence the audience’s perception of the threat or the absence of a threat?
Absences and silences: Pay attention not only to what is shown, but also to what is not shown or said. Whose perspectives are missing? Which voices, experiences, or explanations are left out or silenced? What impact might these omissions have on how the threat is constructed or understood?
- Critical Reflection
Building on your analysis, conduct a critical reflection using insights from academic literature and course readings. Consider:
Implications of framing: What are the effects of framing the threat in this way? Whose interests are served or undermined?
Narrative consequences: How does the portrayal contribute to broader narratives about security, danger, or ‘the other’?
CHOICE - Societal and legal impact: Reflect on one of the following:The potential side effects of the proposed (legal) solutions depicted in the material (e.g., government crackdowns, militarized responses, surveillance).
The impact on criminal law and/or human rights (e.g., restrictions on freedom of speech, civil liberties, or the right to protest).
Support your reflection with references to at least three peer-reviewed academic articles of your choice and besides the book chapter of Bacchi on WPR which serves for methodological purposes, minimum two mandatory course readings.
- Rewriting the Dialogue
Select one key dialogue or monologue from your analysis in step 2. Rewrite this dialogue in a way that frames the threat differently.
For example, you could:
Tone down the sense of urgency or fear.
Challenge stereotypes or dominant tropes.
Emphasize alternative perspectives or motivations.
Briefly explain:
Why you rewrote the dialogue this way.
What impact the new framing might have on the audience’s perception of the threat.
General Essay Requirements
Maximum 2200 words (excluding bibliography and in-text references). See above on the minimum number of scientific articles that needs to be used.
Structure:
Introduction: present your chosen material and threat.
Main body: include your discourse analysis (step 2) and critical reflection (step 3).
Rewritten dialogue and explanation (step 4).
Conclusion: summarize your key findings.
Use APA citation style for all references (in-text and bibliography – see guide on Brightspace).
Submit the essay by (date to be determined) on TurnitInIn between feedback: To make sure you have the ability to improve your work (see PASS/FAIL above), on (date to be added), you should submit via a link on Brightspace an A4 with your choice of material and specific dialogue. Make sure to mention the concepts that you believe are relevant for their analysis with a clear yet prompt explanation. A short reflection on potential social or legal implications needs to be added to. You will receive feedback on their work by (add date) which leaves you X days to refine your work (final deadline – add date).
A clear grading matrix will be added on Brightspace.
Brightspace
Brightspace will be used.
Literatuur
The list of literature can be found in the syllabus, which will be available on Brightspace.
Aanmelden
Students will receive an invitation for registration via the Honours College Law Brightspace page.
Minimum en maximum aantal deelnemers
18-24
Contact
In case of absence, or when you have (other) organizational questions, please contact Honours College Law via honours@law.leidenuniv.nl.
Coordinator: Dr. Roxane de Massol de Rebetz, LL.M, MSc. – only for substantive matters
Work address: KOG
Contact information: by appointment via email
E-mail: r.m.f.de.massol.de.rebetz@law.leidenuniv.nl
Institute: Van Vollenhoven Institute
Department: Law School