Although participation in violent extremism is often thought of as ideologically driven, it is better understood as driven by a need for identity and belonging.
Moonshot is a global social enterprise working to end online harms, applying evidence, ethics, and human rights to this endeavor.
Peer-reviewed research on radicalization and violent extremism identifies a “basic structure of the process of radicalization” where an individual has “real or perceived political grievance(s),” perceives participation in violent extremism as somehow appealing or beneficial, and has a “personal vulnerability” expressed as certain personality traits or a mental health concern.
We are pleased to present our special issue on countering hate and violent extremism in collaboration with Thought Partnerships.
Racism has a significant impact on favela residents’ daily lives, visibly through police killings but also invisibly through everyday interactions of discrimination and distrust.
Rural villagers understood girls’ access to education and women’s economic opportunities outside the home as indicators of everyday peace.
The turn from the GWOT to CVE, with its focus on prevention, broadened the monitoring mandate of security agencies, enabling them to apply tactics based on the assumption that anyone (but mostly the most traditionally marginalized) can be a potential “terrorist” or “extremist,” thereby justifying surveillance, intelligence gathering, and other civil rights violations of so-called suspects.
Violence prevention policy-making must start from an understanding of the lived experience of communities most affected by the GWOT in order to not be complicit in harmful and structurally racist policies.
The backlash of retaliatory transnational terrorist attacks experienced by coalition countries demonstrates the Global War on Terror did not meet its key objective of keeping citizens safe from terrorism.
The Obama Administration constructed the concept of frontier territories—areas that are out of state control but fall within a state’s territorial boundaries—to “sidestep legal constraints” in the use of military force and “cover up what many would consider extra-legal behavior” in U.S. drone warfare.