International Journal on Criminology Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2018 | Page 67

International Journal on Criminology
for explaining the proliferation of major crises or “mega-shocks” (Merle 1976,
Lagadec 1991, 2015; Beck 1986). The nuclear factor continues to be one of the
principal attractors of inter-state crises; but non-state actors, who already played
an important role, are now becoming increasingly important attractors of crisis. 2
For this reason, the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States marked a
break with the past and a new beginning.
The attacks that have taken place since that date, in Europe and more particularly
in France, force us to rethink the traditional frameworks of conflict situations,
and notably the relationship between crisis, war, and terrorism. They invite
us to rethink state action in the light of “continuity between interior and exterior
security” (French White Paper on Defense and National Security 2008). This official
report offers a reflection on the relationship between crisis and terrorism.
What links can be established between these two phenomena? What strategic consequences
can be drawn from them? Starting from an analysis of the relationship
between crisis and terrorism I shall here offer, in all humility, some new ways of
reflecting on the issue, with a view to improving the systems for preventing and
managing major crises, particularly those arising from terrorist attacks.
CRISIS AND TERRORISM
The notion of crisis, as a large number of specialists have shown, is frequently
used inaptly to describe situations of uncertainty (Morin 1976; 2016).
However, since the 1970s, the work of crisis specialists has focused on the
distinguishing features of crises and their definition. Patrick Lagadec, for example,
considers that a major crisis is characterized by a sudden upsurge of different
problems, by a state of emergency, and the destruction of familiar points of reference
(Lagadec 1991; 2015). My own opinion is that a major crisis reflects the
origin or deterioration, either progressive or sudden, of a particular situation. Its
seriousness is manifested by an increasing number of problems, ones sometimes
never seen before; these bring about a degree of complexity and non-linearity,
such that the procedures traditionally designed to deal with negative tensions are
no longer capable of fulfilling their purpose and thus re-establishing the equilibrium
that previously allowed the system to function normally; and this in turn
imperils the survival of the structure.
A crisis can be analyzed at two levels: one is subjective (micro), and reflects
the perception that decision units have of the crisis and in the crisis; the
other is systemic (macro), and concerns the objective impact that the crisis has
on the system or one of its sub-systems (Brecher and Wilkenfeld 2000; Dufour
2009). 3 In crisis situations, decision units are projected out of their comfort zone
2 The idea of “attractor” is a reference to the work by Frédéric Ramel, L’attraction mondiale (Ramel
2012).
3 These conceptions set the crisis within a logic of discontinuity: the crisis is expressed through a
64