Rule of law allows citizens’ grievances to be hear – slowing that process down raises risks that they resort to violent terrorism.

Before exploring the link between the rule of law and terrorism, these two concepts must be clarified, as their definitions remain controversial. Terrorism is a particularly difficult concept to define because of its value-laden nature: one country’s terrorist may be another country’s freedom fighter. For analytical clarity, I follow the definition of terrorism of LaFree and Ackerman (2009, 348) as ‘‘the threatened or actual use of illegal force, directed against civilian targets, by non state actors, in order to attain a political goal, through fear, coercion or intimidation.’’4 Domestic terrorism includes incidents such as the Oklahoma City bombing since they arise only against domestic targets of the terrorists’ home country. International terrorism, then, is a situation in which a terrorist incident in country A involves perpetrators, victims, institutions, governments, or citizens of country B (Enders and Sandler 2006, 7; Dugan 2010). These subtle differences are important, as they provide clarity to a discussion of terrorism in general.

Like the concept of terrorism, the rule of law is also ‘‘subject to various definitional and normative disputes’’ (O’Donnell 2004, 34). For analytical parsimony, I limit myself to two fundamental components that should be present in most democratic societies with a high-quality rule of law: (1) fair, impartial, and effective judicial systems and (2) a nonarbitrary basis according to which laws and the legal system as a whole can be viewed as legitimate.5 As legal scholar Joseph Raz (1977, 198-201) argues, fair and impartial judicial systems require at least an independent judiciary branch with fair-minded judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as strong and stable law enforcement or police (for a similar view, see Fuller 1969). Institutionalizing an independent judiciary system reflects a strong commitment by government to the basic principle that all people are equal before the law and those people deserve the opportunity to have their grievances and disputes heard and settled in court.

Only when fair and independent judicial bodies have been institutionalized are citizens able to have trust and confidence in legal norms, procedures, courts, and the police. When this is the case, citizens are more likely to consult established laws and legal procedures to reconcile political and personal differences rather than turn to physical violence as a means of dispute resolution. Indeed, it is only when citizens believe in the likelihood of a fair and impartial legal ruling in court that citizens are willing to turn to domestic justice systems. Undoubtedly, such a high level of citizen trust in the legal institutions of the state brings a beneficial degree of order to the political and social relations of a society (Hardin 2001; O’Donnell 2004).

The Linkage between the Rule of Law and Domestic Terrorism

The above discussion leads to the inference that ordinary citizens have incentives to use political violence against other citizens, political figures, institutions, or the government under three conditions: (1) when they hold grievances, (2) when they find no peaceful means of resolving these grievances, exacerbating feelings of hopelessness, and desperation, and (3) when they view terrorist action as a legitimate and viable last resort to vent their anger and frustration. The lynchpin of this line of reasoning is that as long as ordinary citizens have access to a peaceful mechanism for conflict resolution, they are less likely to contemplate terrorist violence as a practical option to settle disputes. Along this line, I argue that since liberal democracies promote a high-quality rule of law system, which serves as an effective conflict resolution mechanism, they are likely to experience fewer activities of domestic terrorism. As a fundamental building block of democratic societies, a high-quality legal system ‘‘serves to protect people against anarchy as well as from [the] arbitrary exercise of power by public officials and allows people to plan their daily affairs with confidence’’ (Wilson 2006, 153). Since liberal democratic judicial systems ensure independent adjudication of legal rules, they create a fair chance for the interests at stake in each case to be properly heard in efficient but inexpensive legal outlets. Thus, in the presence of an effective, independent judicial system in liberal democratic societies, ordinary citizens do not need to resort to illegal terrorist measures to resolve their complaints and grievances. Eyerman (1998, 154) makes a similar observation: since democracies ‘‘increase the expected return of legal activity and offer multiple channels of non-violent expression without the threat of government retaliation,’’ they assuage potentially growing bitterness and dissatisfaction that may turn ordinary people into terrorists (see also Frey and Luechinger 2003). In contrast, where sound judicial systems are lacking, dissatisfied people are likely to embrace the principle of retributive justice and become more likely to initiate terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, since democratic citizens are socialized to trust in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system in times of disputes, they subscribe to established laws as a means to settle political grievances. From this perspective, engaging in violence would be self-defeating behavior ultimately undermining a legal institution seen as important and necessary. Furthermore, because democratic citizens see these institutions as both fair and legitimate, citizens will tend to subscribe to the established legal order, even if they disagree with individual legal statutes and rulings. Democratic citizens trust that legal adjudication produces a right and fair result, even if it is not the result they might have wanted.6

It is then not hard to imagine why ordinary people in democratic countries would be less likely to become perpetrators of domestic terrorism than those in nondemocratic countries, where the legal system is suited mainly for the rich and powerful: a nonarbitrary creation of law and a dispassionate legal system that metes out appropriate punishment make extralegal violence untenable and/or undesirable. Because citizens who live in countries without the rule of law view their own governments as illegitimate, public policy decisions as arbitrary, and peaceful participation futile, they are more likely to resort to attacks against domestic targets (or to support terrorist groups that do so). It is important to note that, in fighting domestic terrorism, law-abiding citizens in democratic societies are no less important than the actual presence of an independent judiciary with fair-minded judges and law enforcement officials. As we have seen, judicial institutions alone cannot produce a high-quality rule of law. Other factors within a society, especially the citizenry, must be actively involved. Exclusive reliance on legal authority is less likely to create and maintain safe and healthy communities if democratic citizens do not willingly cooperate with judicial institutions to resolve grievances and if democratic citizens do not serve as watchful eyes and ears against illegal activities of domestic terrorism (Hogg and Brown 1998; Hardin 2001). Alex P. Schmid (2005, 28), Senior Crime Prevention Officer of the United Nations, presents a compelling argument relating to this point: ‘‘where the rule of law is firmly in place, it ensures the responsiveness of government to the people as it enables enhanced critical civil participation. The more citizens are stakeholders in the political process, the less likely it is that some of them form a terrorist organization. In this sense, it can be argued that the rule of law has a preventive effect on the rise of terrorism’’ (emphasis added). In sum, ordinary people within democracies can resolve grievances through rule of law systems, which they have trust in, thereby mitigating the likelihood that they will commit terrorist acts, and resulting in less politically motivated violence.