This paper examines two central questions in terrorism studies: whether a nation or terrorist group can ever claim victory in their conflict, and how the international community should respond to transnational terrorist organizations. Using the IRA's campaign against Britain and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement as a case study, the paper argues that negotiated compromise can constitute a form of "win" for a terrorist organization. It then turns to groups like Al-Qaeda to argue that borderless terrorism requires coordinated international responses, including cooperation on intelligence sharing, financial tracking, and policing across national boundaries.
Has a nation ever "won" a struggle against a terrorist organization? Was the victory short-lived or seemingly permanent? Has a terrorist organization ever "won" in its conflict against a nation? Perhaps the closest example of a "win" attained by either a terrorist group or its government adversary is that of the IRA in its conflict with Great Britain. Britain was terrorized by a series of attacks carried out by this organization, whose central demand was that England withdraw from Northern Ireland.
"From 1969 through 1997, the IRA splintered into a number of organizations, all called the IRA… The IRA began its terrorist attacks on the British army and police following a summer of violent rioting between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland," the most infamous episode of which was known as Bloody Sunday (Zalman, 2006). "For the next generation, the IRA carried out bombings, assassinations, and other terrorist attacks against British and Irish Unionist targets" (Zalman, 2006).
The IRA's name and origins trace back to the original campaign of Irish nationalists to drive Great Britain from Ireland. Technically, the IRA served as the paramilitary wing of the political organization Sinn Féin, which was equally committed to an Ireland free of British influence. Decades of bombings, assassinations, and sustained political pressure gradually shifted the dynamics between the two sides, creating the conditions under which negotiation became possible.
Eventually, in 1997, the Good Friday Agreement established a truce between the two warring parties. Since then, "unionists accused republicans of failing to live up to the spirit of the agreement's requirement for the decommissioning of arms. On the other hand, Sinn Féin accused the British government of failing to demilitarize quickly enough" (The Good Friday Agreement, 1998, BBC). However, after decades of fighting, both sides proved willing to reach and sustain a compromise.
It is true that not all members of the IRA accepted the agreement and that violence still continued, though not at the level of the original campaign. "Terrorist activity by the Real IRA and other paramilitary groups continues and, as of the summer of 2006, is on the rise" (Zalman, 2006). Still, despite the dissatisfaction of some IRA members with the peace agreement, the outcome can overall be considered a qualified "win" for the republican cause — given the British concession to withdraw from Ireland, the legitimization of Sinn Féin as a political party, and the fact that IRA activities (however much the British might wish to deny this) had a measurable influence in bringing a major power to the negotiating table.
The question of how to combat transnational terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda — groups that operate across international borders — raises a distinct set of challenges. "No state, however powerful, can defend itself unilaterally against transnational terrorism. Terrorist networks move operatives, money, and material across borders and through the crevices of the global economy. Only through extensive cooperation on financial flows, intelligence, and police action can the risk of terrorism be reduced" (Policy Brief on Combating International Terrorism, 2008, The Brookings Institution, p. 1).
Even if international agencies are not the only means by which to police international terrorism, they are among the most effective tools available. Terrorism is particularly difficult to contain and detect because it is, by nature, a borderless crime. Increasingly, terrorist organizations are non-state actors with relatively vague and undefined missions whose outreach and ambitions are international in scope. While individual nations can and do take unilateral action, the transnational character of groups like Al-Qaeda demands coordinated multilateral responses encompassing intelligence sharing, financial monitoring, and cross-border law enforcement cooperation.
These two cases together illustrate that neither pure military victory nor total suppression is a realistic outcome in most conflicts with terrorist organizations. The IRA example demonstrates that a negotiated compromise — one in which both sides make meaningful concessions — can represent a durable, if imperfect, resolution. The challenge of transnational terrorism, meanwhile, underscores that no single nation acting alone can effectively neutralize groups that exploit open borders and global financial systems. Sustained international cooperation remains the most viable path forward.
The Good Friday Agreement. (1998). BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/events/good_friday.stm
Policy brief on combating international terrorism. (2008). The Brookings Institution.
Zalman, A. (2006). Understanding the IRA. Retrieved from
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.