Scholars of International Relations have been studying John Herz’s Security Dilemma (SD) since the 1950s and it has become an essential part of the realist IR theory. Herz’s description of “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz 1951, p.7) has aided scholars to analyse complex political situations where this Dilemma has triggered outcomes such as WW1. Nevertheless, there are several voices reconsidering if the SD is still applicable to the issues politics has to face today, terrorism being one of them. This leads us to the following statement: “The rise of transnational terrorism has transformed the Security Dilemma”. In the following essay I will argue that transnational terrorism, along with historical factors, has indeed slightly transformed the SD but that its true essence remains the same. I will do so by looking at the relevance of 1989 and 9/11 for the SD, then discuss how terrorism and specifically state sponsored terrorism affects the SD by …show more content…
Active sponsorship is the direct involvement of the state with a TO and it includes controlling an organization, coordinating the states interests with that of the TO (Iran/ Hizbollah) and or being in contact with a TO. The situation gets even more complex, when so-called “passive sponsorship” is involved. This term describes either knowing toleration, unconcern/ignorance or a state’s incapacity to control its own territory. These factors are still important for a TOs survival. Douglas Feith explains: “while terrorists might be described as “stateless”, they ultimately depend on regimes like the Taliban (in Afghanistan) to operate” (Cerny, 2012,p.12