ABSTRACT

Proscription lists are common counter-terror tools, yet their impact on terrorist violence is unclear. We find that proscription can be effective at constraining the violence of some types of groups, especially those that are young, secular, and without institutional support. However, proscription also can backfire from a counter-terrorist prospective, especially when applied to groups that are well-established, religious, and/or sponsored by states. Our analysis evaluates 534 terrorist groups, including sixty-six that were ultimately proscribed under the United States’ Foreign Terror Organization list. Unsurprisingly, we find that terrorist groups that attract proscription are more violent and better equipped to tap into international terror networks. While younger groups and nationalist groups are more vulnerable to proscription, older religious groups and those with state sponsors seem to be more violent after proscription. Proscription can be an effective tool for reducing terrorist attacks and lethality, but it is most effective against younger terror groups and states should exercise caution in its use as it may not have the desired effects on all types of groups.

摘要

禁制清单是常见的反恐工具，但它们对恐怖主义暴力的影响尚不清楚。我们发现禁令可以有效地限制某些类型群体的暴力行为，尤其是那些年轻、世俗且没有机构支持的群体。然而，从反恐角度来看，禁令也可能适得其反，尤其是在适用于成熟的、宗教的和/或由国家赞助的团体时。我们的分析评估了 534 个恐怖组织，其中 66 个最终被美国的外国恐怖组织名单禁止。不出所料，我们发现被取缔的恐怖组织更加暴力，更有能力利用国际恐怖网络。虽然年轻团体和民族主义团体更容易受到禁止，年长的宗教团体和有国家赞助的宗教团体在被取缔后似乎更加暴力。禁令可以是减少恐怖袭击和杀伤力的有效工具，但它对年轻的恐怖组织最有效，各国应谨慎使用它，因为它可能不会对所有类型的组织产生预期的影响。