SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İmgelem / 2026 / Sayı: Küresel Modern Toplumsal Çelişkiler Özel Sayı

The Security–Liberty Paradox in Counterterrorism: A Comparative Analysis of Western Democracies Following the 9/11, Madrid, and London Attacks

Terörle Mücadelede Güvenlik ve Özgürlük Paradoksu: 11 Eylül, Madrid ve Londra Saldırıları Sonrası Batı Demokrasilerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Sinem Uca(ÇAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-4578-2360
Saffet Akkaya(ÇAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2902-0702
Journal
İmgelem
Pages
333–356
Publication Date
2026-10-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study posits that security and liberty are mutually reinforcing elements of legitimate security policies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to critically examine the 9/11 (2001), Madrid (2004), and London (2005) attacks perpetrated by Al-Qaeda through the lens of the tension between traditional security paradigms and individual liberties. “New Terrorism,” which disrupted the global system in the early 21st century, led to the implementation of extraordinary security policies, surveillance mechanisms, and legal restrictions across the West.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Adopting a qualitative research methodology, relevant legal regulations, strategy documents, and security policies were examined through document analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study posits that security and liberty are mutually reinforcing elements of legitimate security policies.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Yeni Terörizm · Eleştirel Güvenlik Çalışmaları · Güvenlik-Özgürlük Paradoksu

Abstract

This study aims to critically examine the 9/11 (2001), Madrid (2004), and London (2005) attacks perpetrated by Al-Qaeda through the lens of the tension between traditional security paradigms and individual liberties. “New Terrorism,” which disrupted the global system in the early 21st century, led to the implementation of extraordinary security policies, surveillance mechanisms, and legal restrictions across the West. Legitimized by public order arguments, these practices narrowed fundamental rights and deepened debates on the erosion of democratic gains. Adopting a qualitative research methodology, relevant legal regulations, strategy documents, and security policies were examined through document analysis. Integrating Critical Security Studies, securitization, state of exception, and surveillance, the theoretical framework transcends state-centric ontological boundaries, shifting the referent object directly to humans and “Emancipation”. Comparative findings demonstrate that counterterrorism policies expanded preventive state authority while restricting individual rights, privacy, and spaces of emancipation. The study posits that security and liberty are mutually reinforcing elements of legitimate security policies.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, El-Kaide tarafından düzenlenen 11 Eylül (2001), Madrid (2004) ve Londra (2005) saldırılarını, geleneksel güvenlik paradigmaları ile bireysel özgürlükler arasındaki gerilim ekseninde eleştirel perspektifle incelemektir. 21. yüzyılın başında küresel sistemi sarsan “Yeni Terörizm” olgusu, Batı'da olağanüstü güvenlik politikalarının, gözetim mekanizmalarının ve yasal kısıtlamaların yürürlüğe girmesine yol açmıştır. Kamusal düzen gerekçesiyle meşrulaştırılan bu pratikler, hak ve özgürlük alanlarını daraltarak demokratik kazanımların aşınması tartışmalarını derinleştirmiştir. Nitel araştırma yönteminin benimsendiği çalışmada, ilgili yasal düzenlemeler, resmî strateji belgeleri ve güvenlik politikaları nitel doküman analizi tekniğiyle incelenmiştir. Eleştirel Güvenlik Çalışmaları, güvenlikleştirme, istisna hali ve gözetim yaklaşımlarını bütünleştiren kuramsal çerçeve, devlet merkezli ontolojik sınırları aşarak “Özgürleşme” kavramı çerçevesinde güvenliğin referans nesnesini doğrudan insana taşımaktadır. Karşılaştırmalı vaka analiziyle elde edilen bulgular, üç ülkede terörle mücadele politikalarının devletin önleyici ve istisnai yetkilerini genişletirken bireysel haklar, mahremiyet ve özgürleşme alanlarını sınırlandırabildiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, güvenlik ile özgürlüğün rakip değil, demokratik güvenlik politikalarının meşruiyeti açısından tamamlayıcı unsurlar olduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uca, S., Akkaya, S. (2026). The Security–Liberty Paradox in Counterterrorism: A Comparative Analysis of Western Democracies Following the 9/11, Madrid, and London Attacks. İmgelem, Sayı: Küresel Modern Toplumsal Çelişkiler Özel Sayı, 333–356. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1997051

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Çev.). The University of Chicago Press.
  2. Alonso, R. (2013). The madrid bombings and negotiations with ETA: A case study of the impact of terrorism on Spanish politics. Terrorism and Political Violence, 25(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2013.733272.
  3. Bigo, D. (2008). Globalized (in)security: The field and the ban-opticon. D. Bigo & A. Tsoukala (Ed.), Terror, insecurity and liberty: Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11 içinde (ss. 10–48). Routledge.
  4. Birol, A. F. (2024). Güvenliğin biyopolitikası, immunitas ve uluslararası ilişkiler. İmgelem, (15), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1479257.
  5. Booth, K. (1991). Security and emancipation. Review of International Studies, 17(4), 313–326.
  6. Buzan, B. (1991). New patterns of global security in the twenty-first century. International Affairs, 67(3), 431–451.
  7. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  8. Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939. Macmillan.
  9. Cohen, R., & Mihalka, M. (2001). Cooperative security: New horizons for international order (The Marshall Center Papers No. 3). George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/marshall-center-papers/cooperative-security-new-horizons-international-order/cooperative-security-individual-security-international.
  10. Council of the European Union. (2004, 25 Mart). Declaration on combating terrorism (Council document 7906/04). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/52165/st_7906_2004_init_en.pdf.
  11. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501.
  12. Deutsch, K. W., Burrell, S. A., Kann, R. A., Lee, M., Lichterman, M., Lindgren, R. E., Loewenheim, F. L., & Van Wagenen, R. W. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area: International organization in the light of historical experience. Princeton University Press.
  13. Dorling, K. (2007). An exceptional situation? A comparative assessment of anti-terrorism arrest and detention powers in the UK and Spain and of their compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Essex Human Rights Review, 4(1), 1–17.
  14. Elman, C. (2007). Realism. M. Griffiths (Ed.), International relations theory for the twenty-first century: An introduction içinde (ss. 11–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939178.
  15. Forde, S. (1992). Varieties of realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli. The Journal of Politics, 54(2), 372–393.
  16. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Vintage Books.
  17. Friesen, K. (2007). The effects of the Madrid and London subway bombings on Europe’s view of terrorism. Human Rights & Human Welfare, 7(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.56902/HRHW.2007.7.1.29.
  18. Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The cold war. Penguin Press.
  19. Glaser, C. L. (1994). Realists as optimists: Cooperation as self-help. International Security, 19(3), 50–90.
  20. Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford University Press.
  21. Heymann, P. B. (2001). Dealing with terrorism. International Security, 26(3), 24–38.
  22. HM Government. (2009). The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering international terrorism (CONTEST). HMSO.
  23. House of Commons. (2006). Report of the official account of the bombings in London on 7th july 2005. The Stationery Office.
  24. Kennedy, P. (1987). Büyük güçlerin yükseliş ve çöküşleri. Random House.
  25. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4. bs.). Longman.
  26. Laqueur, W. (1999). The New terrorism: Fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction. Oxford University Press.
  27. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 commission report: Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-911REPORT.
  28. National Counterterrorism Center. (2011). Report on Terrorism 2010. NCTC.
  29. Parmar, A. (2011). Stop and search in London: Counter-terrorist or counter-productive? Policing and Society, 21(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2011.617984.
  30. Rasmussen, D. M. (2019). Ideal speech situation. A. Allen & E. Mendieta (Ed.), The Cambridge Habermas lexicon içinde (ss. 182–184). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316771303.048.
  31. Reinares, F. (2009). After the Madrid bombings: Internal security reforms and prevention of global terrorism in Spain. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 32(5), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100902836767.
  32. Reinares, F. (2010). The Madrid bombings and global jihadism. Survival, 52(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396331003764629.
  33. Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (G. Schwab, Çev.). The University of Chicago Press.
  34. Sederberg, P. C. (2003). Global terrorism: Problems of challenge and response. C. W. Kegley (Ed.), Içinde, the New global terrorism: Characteristics, causes, controls içinde (ss. 267–284). Prentice Hall.
  35. Shah, R. (2015). Law enforcement and data privacy: A forward-looking approach. The Yale Law Journal, 125(2), 543–558.
  36. Steans, J., Pettiford, L., Diez, T., & El-Anis, I. (2010). An introduction to international relations theory: Perspectives and themes (3. bs.). Pearson.
  37. Thomas, P. (2012). Responding to the threat of violent extremism: Failing to prevent. Bloomsbury Academic.
  38. Ubasart-González, G. (2019). ETA and state action: The development of Spanish antiterrorism. Crime, Law and Social Change, 72(5), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09845-6.
  39. U.S. Department of Justice. (t.y.). What is the USA PATRIOT Act? https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf.
  40. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2013). International relations theory (5. bs.). Longman.
  41. Walt, S. M. (2001). Beyond bin laden: Reshaping u.s. Foreign policy. International Security, 26(3), 56–78.
  42. Waltz, K. N. (2002). Structural realism after the Cold War. Columbia University Press.
  43. Woodworth, P. (2004). Spain changes course: Aznar’s legacy, Zapatero’s prospects. World Policy Journal, 21(2), 7–22.
  44. Yaman, D. (2005). 11 eylül sonrasında ABD: Algılamalar, psikolojik yansımalar ve yasal düzenlemeler. Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 1(1), 125–142.