Giving an account of the evolution of terrorism over millennia is an extensive task that Randall Law undertakes in the second edition of his book titled Terrorism: A History. The book is divided into 16 chapters that provide a chronological overview of how terrorism has evolved from the period of the ancient Assyrians from the ninth to seventh centuries BCE to the onset of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). While each chapter focuses on the unique social circumstances and conditions that precipitated the rise of different terrorist groups and attacks, the chapters are linked through Law’s explanation of how the tactics and objectives of preceding groups influenced the formation and methods used by subsequent terrorist groups. It is the tactical similarities among the terrorist groups that inform Law’s understanding of terrorism which, he describes as a middle ground between traditionalists who identify some ‘forms of violence objectively as terrorism’ and critical terrorism scholars who view terrorism as a label that ‘nearly always serves a powerful agents agenda’ (p. 6). Law’s broad understanding of terrorism enables him to include a vast array of terrorist incidences and groups in his book. Ironically, this not only enriches many of the arguments in the book but also results in confusion over what forms of political violence constitute acts of terrorism.

中文翻译：

---

书评：兰德尔定律。2016. 恐怖主义：历史兰德尔法。2016. 恐怖主义：历史。英国剑桥：政治出版社，386 页 ISBN：978-0-7456-9089-6

兰德尔·劳在其题为《恐怖主义：历史》一书的第二版中承担了一项广泛的任务，讲述恐怖主义在几千年来的演变过程。该书分为 16 章，按时间顺序概述了恐怖主义如何从公元前 9 世纪到 7 世纪的古代亚述人时期发展到伊拉克和叙利亚伊斯兰国 (ISIS)。虽然每一章都侧重于促成不同恐怖组织兴起和袭击的独特社会环境和条件，但通过罗对先前恐怖组织的策略和目标如何影响随后恐怖组织的形成和使用的方法的解释，将各章联系起来。正是恐怖组织之间的战术相似性使劳对恐怖主义的理解有所了解，他将某些“客观地将某些暴力形式视为恐怖主义”的传统主义者和将恐怖主义视为“几乎总是为强大的代理人议程服务”的标签的批判性恐怖主义学者描述为中间立场（第 6 页）。罗对恐怖主义的广泛理解使他能够在他的书中包括大量的恐怖主义事件和团体。具有讽刺意味的是，这不仅丰富了书中的许多论点，而且导致了对哪些形式的政治暴力构成恐怖主义行为的混淆。罗对恐怖主义的广泛理解使他能够在他的书中包括大量的恐怖主义事件和团体。具有讽刺意味的是，这不仅丰富了书中的许多论点，而且导致了对哪些形式的政治暴力构成恐怖主义行为的混淆。罗对恐怖主义的广泛理解使他能够在他的书中包括大量的恐怖主义事件和团体。具有讽刺意味的是，这不仅丰富了书中的许多论点，而且导致了对哪些形式的政治暴力构成恐怖主义行为的混淆。