For this writing assignment, you will select use the factual case above and you will write a 3-5-page conflict assessment that you will present as a case study. In your case study, please make sure to address the following:
1. Define the conflict, positions and interests that you see in the facts provided.
Sample Solution
The conflict in this case is between the City of Smithville and the developers, who are attempting to build a shopping mall on a parcel of land near the city limits. The City’s position is that they do not want to see such a large development in their area due to potential traffic, noise and parking congestion, as well as environmental harms. They also argue that this kind of development will detract from local businesses within the city itself and reduce their ability to draw customers. The developer’s position is that they believe their proposed project will bring economic benefits to the area by providing jobs for local residents as well as increased tax revenue for the city. Additionally, they argue that there would be no significant impacts on traffic, noise or parking given that it would be located just outside of town limits.
Sample Solution
The conflict in this case is between the City of Smithville and the developers, who are attempting to build a shopping mall on a parcel of land near the city limits. The City’s position is that they do not want to see such a large development in their area due to potential traffic, noise and parking congestion, as well as environmental harms. They also argue that this kind of development will detract from local businesses within the city itself and reduce their ability to draw customers. The developer’s position is that they believe their proposed project will bring economic benefits to the area by providing jobs for local residents as well as increased tax revenue for the city. Additionally, they argue that there would be no significant impacts on traffic, noise or parking given that it would be located just outside of town limits.
While, Silke (2004) had warned that the war-weariness exhibited by researchers regarding the terrorism definition challenge, needed to be surmounted (p. 208), others like Grob-Frizgibbon (2005) had indicated that arriving at a generally acceptable definition remained critical, especially in the post 9/11 environment. In addition, resolving the debate holds great benefits across the different layers of society. For instance, it would amount to a significant breakthrough in the theoretical advancement of the field of terrorism studies, and by extension positive outcomes for policy formation and legislation (Richards, 2014); aid in the understanding of the various shades and expressions of terrorism (Schmid, 2004a); curb terrorism (Schmid; 2004b); rein in the excesses of state apparatus in counterterrorism campaigns (Golder & William, 2004); and assist in the litigation process by delineating what counts as terrorism and who a terrorist is (Hodgson & Tadros, 2013). Resolving this debacle is also critical for addressing some of the challenges encountered by terrorism databases as well as their sources. Although most of the criticisms against the data sources are traceable to their methodologies, at the core lies the issue of definition. The question, then is, why has it been near impossible to arrive at a consensual definition of terrorism?
One of the principal challenges of the terrorism definition debacle is linked to the nature of the word itself. Terrorism as will be discussed on the next of section, has had varied implications, meaning and expressions overtime. The flexibility in the use of the word is akin to most socially constructed concepts, which are subject to bias and multiple interpretations by powerful social actors. Jackson, Jarvis, Gunning and Smyth (2011) have also noted that arriving at a fixed definition of terrorism would be paradoxical, and would rid it of its “ontologically unstable” feature (p. 119). Yet, Richard (2014) had argued that the adoption of a generally acceptable definition remains crucial, especially one that would represent the current expressions of terrorism. However, his claim that terrorism-based literature in the past 40 years had signified “that terrorism entails the intent to generate a wider psychological impact beyond the immediate victims” (p. 219) is in direct conflict with Weinberg, Pedahzur and Hirsch-Hoefler’s (2004) findings, where the pundits observed that lesser emphasis was placed on the psychological component of terrorism, due to the non-observable nature of the phenomenon.
Another challenge confronting the definition of terrorism is proba
