HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

UPARWARA, NEW RAIPUR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROJECT

ON

ADMINISTRATIVE DEFERENCE: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CHEVRON DOCTRINE

sUBMITTED TO – Ms. Aditi Singh SUBMITTED BY— Mahua Dutta

SEMESTER -- VI A

ROLL NO. -- 93
 DECLARATION

I, Mahua Dutta, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, “Administrative Deference: critical
analysis of Chevron Doctrine” submitted to H.N.L.U., Raipur is record of an original work done by me
under the able guidance of Ms. Aditi Singh, Faculty Member, H.N.L.U., Raipur.

Mahua Dutta

B.A, LL.B (Hons.)

Roll no. 93

VI Semester

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank the Political Science teacher; Ms. Aditi Singh for giving me this project on
“Administrative Deference: critical analysis of Chevron Doctrine” which has widened my knowledge on
the scope and relevance of it in the study of Administrative Law. Her guidance and support has been
instrumental in the completion of this project. Thank you ma’am.

My heartfelt gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the
form of our library and IT lab that was a source of great help in the completion of this project.

I also thank my friends for their precious inputs which have been very helpful in the completion of this
project.

ii
 CONTENTS

Declaration……………………………………………………………………..i

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….ii

Contents ………………………………………………………………………..iii

Objectives of the study………………………………………………………....iv

Research Methodology……………………..………………………………….iv

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….01

Chapter-1:- Meaning of International Terrorism…..…………………….....02

Chapter-2:- Causes of Terrorism……………………………………..….…...05

Chapter-3:- Effects of Terrorism …………….………………………………09

Chapter-4:- Impact of International Terrorism on World Security..….....13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...14

Bibliography and References………………………………………………….15

iii
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To understand the concept of Chevron Doctrine.

2. To critically analyse the concept of Chevron Doctrine.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This Project is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources have been
largely used to gather information and data. Books and other reference as guided by Faculty of
Administrative Law have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites have
also been referred.

I
 INTRODUCTION

One of the most important principles in administrative law, The “Chevron Deference” is a term coined after
a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.1 referring to the doctrine
of judicial deference given to administrative actions.  In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test
as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial
deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not
spoken directly to the precise issue at question.  The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a
legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather
implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made
by the administrative agency.  Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute is silent or
ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was
based on a permissible construction of the statute.  The Chevron deference first requires that the
administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute
being construed.  Accordingly, interpretations by agencies not in charge of that statute in question are not
owed any judicial deference.  Also, the implicit delegation of authority to an administrative agency to
interpret a statute does not extend to the agency’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under that statute.

Generally, to be accorded Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be
permissible, which the court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the
reasonableness of a particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative
interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue can
be a useful guide, if the Congress was aware of the interpretation when it acted or refrained from action,
and when the agency’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the clear statutory language. 

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of Chevron deference, holding that only
the agency interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law, such as adjudications,
or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for Chevron deference, while those contained in opinion
letters, policy statements, agency manuals, or other formats that do not carry the force of law are not
warranted a Chevron deference. 

` Chapter 1- Meaning of Chevron Doctrine

1
468 U.S. 837 (1984)
Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal
courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress
delegated to the agency to administer. The principle derives its name from the 1984 Supreme
Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[1]
In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s
answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s
answer was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at
question.  The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an
administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may
not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the
administrative agency. 
According to Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be
permissible, which the court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the
reasonableness of a particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative
interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue
can be a useful guide, if the Congress was aware of the interpretation when it acted or refrained from
action, and when the agency’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the clear statutory language. 

BACKGROUND

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. was decided on June 25, 1984, by
the U.S. Supreme Court. The case concerned a disagreement over a change in the Environmental
Protection Agency’s interpretation of a permitting provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977.[4][5]

“The case questioned how federal courts should view a federal agency's interpretation of a statute
that Congress directed the agency to implement. The Supreme Court held that federal courts
should defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute under these circumstances, unless the court
determines that the agency's interpretation is "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the
statute."
The ruling established the principle of Chevron deference, a practice in which federal courts, in
reviewing a federal government agency's action, defer to the agency’s construction of a statute that
Congress delegated to the agency to administer.[2]

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for a unanimous six-person court. Justice Stevens
began his opinion by clarifying the scope and extent to which a federal court should defer to a federal
agency's interpretation of a statute, which the agency itself has authority and obligation to administer.
These principles are known today as Chevron deference:[3]

“When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is

confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has
directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is
the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines
Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not
simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence
of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with
respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is
based on a permissible construction of the statute. ...

If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation
of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.
Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary,
capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Sometimes the legislative delegation to
an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court
may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable
interpretation made by the administrator of an agency. “

Chevron is best understood as a departure from the prior case by-case approach. Instead
of attempting to determine Congress's intent on a case-by-case basis, the Court assumed
that ambiguity meant Congress intended to delegate power and the Court should
therefore defer to the agency's interpretation. Under this view, the reasons the Chevron
Court gives for deference support a presumption of delegation. Congress may have
wanted the benefit of agency expertise, or it may have wanted the decision to be made
by a politically accountable body, or it may have thought that judicial tools would not be
useful in resolving potential conflicts. Under Chevron, courts are no longer required to
isolate one of these reasons for deference. Instead, in any instance of ambiguity, they
effectively assume that one exists and automatically defer.
 Chapter 2 - Causes of Terrorism

This is one of the major questions with regards to understanding terrorism. In fact, some scholars have
asked whether we can know what causes terrorism? Scholars have in fact attempted to find factors that lead
an individual to commit an act of terror, all the while recognizing that “Terrorism…is a complex set of
phenomena, covering a great diversity of groups with different origins and causes…”. This section will
outline some of the key arguments and finding with regards to what are the causes of terrorism2.
Bjørgo argues that when we are trying to understand the causes of terrorism, we must be aware that
there are “structural” causes and “facilitators”. Some causes of terrorism are “preconditions” which “set the
stage for terrorism in the long run” and precipitants, which “are the specific events or phenomena that
immediately precede or trigger the outbreak of terrorism” (3). Thus, some events may set the conditions,
but the person may not know about it, whereas other events may be more directly and immediately tied to a
response.

 Grievances
As Crenshaw (1981) says,” The first condition that can be considered a direct cause of terrorism is the
existence of concrete grievances among an identifiable subgroup of a larger population, such as an ethnic
minority discriminated against by the majority. A social movement develops in order to redress these
grievances and to gain either equal rights or a separate state; terrorism is then the resort of an extremist
faction of this broader movement. In practice, terrorism has frequently arisen in such situations: in modem
states, separatist nationalism among Basques, Bretons, and Quebecois as motivated terrorism. In the
colonial era, nationalist movements commonly turned to terrorism” 3. However, it is important to not that
just because a group has grievances, this does not mean that they will commit actions of terrorism.
Furthermore, many who do not fall in this category end up committing acts of terror (Crenshaw, 1981).
That is why it is important to not that it is but one of many causes of terrorism.

 Lack of Political Expression

2
Wilkinson, P. (2006) Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Routledge
3
Colarik, A. (2006) Cyber Terrorism. London: IGI Global
A related cause of terrorism to grievances seems to be the lack of political expression of grievances. While
this might be related to a specific group that is marginalized, it is far from necessarily the case. It may just
be that the government is oppressive of all its citizens, unwilling to allow any sort of political expression
(Crenshaw, 1981). This in turn may lead individuals to commit acts of terror against that said government.  
It can be the case that these individuals are acting as a small subsection of the overall population, who
while may be frustrated with the government, would not be willing to carry out such acts (Crenshaw,
1981). As Crenshaw (1981) argues, “[m]any terrorists today are young, well-educated, and middle class in
background. Such students or young professionals, with prior political experience, are disillusioned with
the prospects of changing society and see little chance of access to the system despite their privileged
status”4.

 Economic Grievances
Along with political grievances, as well as the inability to express actions through the political system of
the state, scholars have also argued that economic deprivation can also lead to an increase in terror
attacks. Some, such as Bird, Blomberg, & Hess (2008) have suggested that the less one has, particularly
compared to others may be the reason that some would commit such attacks. This could be compared to
those in their communities, their country, or compared to others in another country. As Bird, Blomberg,
& Hess (2008) argued, “[t]he perpetrators are those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by
the status quo and the victims are those who they perceive as having benefited from it…” .

 Ideological/Religious Motivations
Along with psychology, economic, political grievances, some causes of terrorism may stem from a
particular ideology. This can vary, and of course differs from politics, although there of course can be
overlap of these causes. With ideology, there is a belief in some idea, which in turn is the motivation for
their behavior. For example, “Historically, Marxism-Leninism has proven to be powerfully attractive to
individuals who seek a framework that enables them to understand not only why injustices exist in a
society but also how to end them”5. Some of the most recent attention to ideology has been when
examining the motivations of Al Qaeda (Viotti & Kauppi, who emphasizes a puritanical interpretation
of Islam in their actions.6

 Domestic Policies of a State

4
Judith Palmer Harik, Hezbollah, The Changing Face of Terrorism
5
Bruce Hoffman, “Foreword: Twenty-First Century Terrorism”, James M. Smith and William C.
6
Kapur R.N, 1996. Terrorism and Integrated Approach to Counter it. National Defense College Paper India.
Scholars believe that a state’s domestic policy can lead to individuals committing acts of terror. This can
be apparent based on various political actions, and numerous examples throughout the
international system, and throughout history. For example, the conflict in Northern Ireland, and the
resulting terror attacks that occurred throughout the years were at least partially motivated by what some
saw as problematic British government policies in Northern Ireland. The same motivation could
be argued for South Africa, where many were furious at the government’s apartheid policies, or with the
Palestinian Liberation Organization, and what they saw as abusive policies by the Israeli government
and military in the Palestinian Territories (Payne, 2013). Again, much of this may be policies of the
state, or the perception that the state is unwilling to remedy these particular grievances (Payne, 2013),
and thus the state becomes a political target due to their policies, perceived indifference of the  policies,
or tacit approval of said policies.7

 Foreign Policy of a State

A government’s foreign policy positions and actions have also been known to be another cause of
terrorism. For example, today, some have argued that recent terror attacks have been at least partially
driven by their views on United States foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. However, the issue
of targeting a state due to their foreign policies are not a new phenomena. As Payne (2013) explains, one
can look at the Roman Empire and see that some used terror to attack the Empire.8

 Psychological Causes of Terrorism

Some have looked at terrorism from the lens of psychology, trying to understand whether there are any
mental disorders, or other psychological issues with individuals who commit such actions. For example,
many have looked at a child’s upbringing to see if there were any issues, or any signs that may have led to
future actions of terrorism. Yet as Viotti & Kauppi (2013) explain, while one might see some of these
issues in some of the individuals who committed terrorism, “to dismiss all terrorists as mentally ill is
simply wrong”9, as there are many who have committed such acts of terror that did not fit this
psychological profile (342). Within the field of psychology, some have looked at social psychology to help
better understand the causes of terrorism, namely “the study of the relations between people and groups” to
see if there were any factors in the individuals’ interactions that could help explain why they committed the
act of terrorism. For example, some social psychologists look to see whether individuals that moved to new

7
McNamara R.S, 1968. The Essence of Security.
8
Crenshaw, M. (1981). The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics
9
Gupter, D.K. (2008) Understanding Terrorism and Political Violence. Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group
country felt like “outsiders” in this new environment, and if they then found places or groups that not only
supported them, but also may have influenced them towards radical interpretations of faith or had a role in
convincing them to carry out acts of violence.10

Chapter 3- Effects of Terrorism

Political, religious or ethnic-based instability within a country has the potential to imperil peace, unity,
economic and social development. Though the terrorist groups are mostly based in the north fighting for an
unidentified cause at present, its potentials to disrupt the entire country are high. For instance, the activities
of terrorist have paralysed almost all sections of the country. It had breached peace, threatened the unity and
impeded economic progress and development.

10
Alex S, 1988.Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors Authors, Concepts, Data Bases Theories. North Holland
Publishing Company
A. Social Effect
Terrorism has had a negative impact on the people regardless of status and the society at large. It has
disrupted and offset the normal social life and a good number of innocent lives have been lost.
Terrorists’ activities have dislocated people from their usual bases to different unintended locations.
The mass movement of people creates refugee problems with substantial costs to the individual, host
communities and the government. In addition, these episodes of violence has hit strongly against and
disorganised the socio-cultural tranquillity, the fragile religious tolerance among the people and
polluted the serene and spiritual based of the environment. The human costs in terms of lives and
properties can hardly be valued and quantified since the upsurge of the violence began
B. Political Effect
Since the rise of Boko Haram, the Islamic sect in spreading terror in the last three years, spreading
clouds of fear across the country, and especially in many parts of the north where law and order has
collapsed. Different murderous gangs roam the nooks and crannies of the cities, streets and villages day
and night exploding bombs, shooting and killing innocent people. They set homes and business
premises on fire, destroying places of worship, and attacking security agents and institutions. The
process has promoted anarchy by causing confusion and widespread panic among people in Nigeria.
The civil rights of individuals and even their more basic civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution
has been jeopardised. While the Islamic sects unleash terror on the people, the activities of the security
agents have become deplorable as well hence the abuses of people’s liberty have become the order of
the day. They have deployed an unconventional and extra-judicial method of shoot at sight which is
usually adopted by the government to tackle widespread public disturbances and terrible crimes. The
security agents stop people at will, restrict people’s movement by the day and especially at night and
kill anyone at the least suspicion. The sects’ activities have spread fear across the length and breadth of
not only northern Nigeria but the entire country especially among the political elites. Given the ethnic
sensitivity of the country, it has pushed further its political polarisation and raised the existing suspicion
and distrust especially between the north and south.11

C. Economic Effect
Extreme violence repels rather than attracts business investors as in the case of the activities of Boko
Haram. When human, material and financial resources are channelled into the advancement of sectarian
ideology, economic development is retarded. The violence afflicted in northern Nigeria has affected
11
Achike O, 1976. Ground Work of Military Law and Military Rule in Nigeria. Fourth Dimension Publisher, Enugu
business and economic activities have slowed down. Moreover, the movement of people to these zones
that would have buster economic activities have been stalled. Terrorism has already worsened the
development space of the region as it has scared foreign and local investors alike and limited the
earnings from tourism. Jos the capital of Plateau State that was once the pearl of tourism and a dream
home for most people across Nigeria has become a shadow of itself. There is no doubt that wars,
terrorism had led to political instability which in turn have a significant negative effect on the
economies in which they take place. Terror attacks are known to cause decrease in aggregate private
investments. The orchestrated attacks on vital government installations, infrastructure and investments
have sent northern Nigeria to the brink of development. One of the most obvious effects is the distress
it has caused to local businesses and the people who reside in that part of the country. The violence has
caused the destruction of lives and property in the north thereby paralysing economic activities in the
region in spite of its natural endowment in agricultural productivity. It has succeeded in creating fear
and terror that has hunted everybody and the productivity of people has been stalled. Most economic
activities have come to a halt due to uncertainty in the country. It has paralysed economic activities
especially in the northern parts of the country were these incidents are prevalent, thereby worsening the
already bad situation. It also has disrupted economic activities because people fear to go to the markets
to transact business because they do not know where the next attempt will be. The northern part of the
country that used to be a major food supply to the entire country has been fled by people living in the
region. This has had adverse effect on food supply and prices as well. Northern Nigeria that is trying
desperately to industrialised but with a dangerous group such as Boko Haram, investors either foreign
or local cannot invest in an unstable environment.

Chapter 4 - Impact of International Terrorism on World Security

By a mere examination of the question, the first answer to come to mind is Yes, indeed terrorism is a
serious threat to international and national security. Despite the diverse definitions of terrorism, some
common factors can be found in all terrorist organizations. They agree that, first, terrorism always has
a political agenda. Secondly, terrorist organisations depend on the use of violence or the threat of
using violence. Thirdly, terrorist groups always have a target, for example, the government or
civilians or journalist etc. Fourthly, terrorist organisations are well structured and not just the
activities of individuals. Fifthly, it mostly involves non state actors and mostly targets non state actors
or state or both; and sixth, terrorist organizations always struggle for some kind of power change
.Terrorism is in fact a serious threat no matter the cause they try to accomplish. The fact that it
involves the taking of innocent lives possesses a threat. Further due to the resources fuelled into
countering terrorism; the countries tackling terrorism have the chances of going through economic
difficulties. So not only does terrorism threaten the national and international security, it can lead a
nation into economic crises with can lead to other form of security challenges.

Also, the nature, structure and mere existence of the state is being threatened by these violent groups.
For instance the initial attacks by the Tamil insurgents relied on the use of violence (terrorism) which
later escalated to guerrilla attacks that led to a civil war (2012:62). They acknowledge that even
though terrorism has not been 100% successful, we cannot deny that it has led to couple of changes in
both national and foreign policies round the world. They point out that, all countries around the world
are scared of three major things; First is, weapons of mass destruction, second is the funds put into
counter terrorism which will not allow for economic and infrastructural growth and third 2 is
demeaning security at a long run. However, they fail to accept that the reality of the existence of
weapons of mass destruction is clouded.12

In the same light, the internet and technological advancement in the 21st century, has made the access
to material and chemicals used for making weapons of mass destruction more accessible by terrorist.
This however has led to innocent individual being put in harm’s way or being killed. However, for
terrorist around the globe, the weapons of terrorism are no longer simply the guns and bombs that
they always have used, now those weapons include Mini-cam and videotape, massed marketed CD-
ROMs, world wide web access that have defined the information of revolution today13.

On another hand, projects that since the world has transcended to the fourth wave of terrorism, every
diverse and multicultural society is met with the fear of being battered by a cluster of extremist,
especially if it an external threat. ‘Every society has felt angry insecure and utterly confused about
what to do’. This leaves a lot of nations in panic of what to do and how to go about it when terrorist
organizations or groups strike innocent civilians. He states that ‘the sight of innocent, unsuspecting
people being killed or injured gives us all a collective sense of insecurity’

12
Peu Ghosh, International Relations
13
Guelke, A. (2006) Terrorism and Global Disorder. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd
The media plays a major role in making terrorism a serious threat to international and national
security. He says that ‘Increasing numbers of individuals and groups that advocate violent jihad are
known to be using the internet extensively, both as a tool for spreading their message and in some
instances, attack planning and preparation’ Furthermore the media promotes terrorism and makes it a
serious threat because it possesses three major outcomes. First, it increases fear in the global society,
is one of the aims of terrorism. Secondly, it tends to make people who have nearly the same believes,
sympathise for terrorist organisations and lastly, the media has help terrorist organisations in getting
more followers to labour on its cause. The internet is also use as a propaganda tool, also for terrorist
to contact their colleagues and provide individuals with instructions that can help to make bombs and
join their cause. Other than the media improving terrorist acts, the media is also seen as being a major
threat to national security. The media would go to whatever length, with or without prove to make a
story that would boost their ratings. The media which are supposed to be non-biased is also often
influenced by the government to protest its interest.

However, despite the fact that terrorism might seem as a serious threat to international security, the
measures that the government has put in place has by no means helped in solving the problem. The
threat of terror has not only increased but has spread round the global system. The amount of funds
put into countering terrorism cannot be justified as there has been no improvement. Terrorism is a
serious threat to international and national security. However, it has been established that the methods
used to counter it has not properly worked. It has been pointed out that state responses to terrorism
has not helped but instead furthered the cause of terrorism. In dealing with terrorism, the state or
government must by all means try to control the media to some extent, keeping in mind that there are
no solutions to all forms of threats. Wilkinson states that countering terrorism is like being a
goalkeeper, you can be the best but, people will only remember the one goal that gests past you.
 Conclusion

There are a number of costs to terrorism. For example, the effects of terrorism alter the lives, as well
as responses of individuals, non-government actors, and state actors. For example, when looking at
the individual, “Individuals usually suffer the most  from terrorist acts in terms of loss of lives and
social, psychological, and physical problems. Many citizens are made ill by fear, and a sudden loss of
personal freedom”. In addition, what terrorism also does it build tension and “undermine[s] trust”
between members of the community, such as was the case between the Arab and Muslim
communities in the United States, with their neighbors. As we see, there are still numerous forms of
Islamophobia and racism towards Arabs and other communities (such as the Sikh community)
because of the effects of the September 11th, 2001 terror attack on the United States, and according to
reports, sadly, there are many in the United States who think it is permissible to restrict the rights of
Muslims and Arabs due to these concerns. Some individuals sadly generalize about an entire group,
which continues to promote misunderstanding, instead of peace, acceptance, and the importance of a
seeing ourselves as a global human community.

In addition to the individual costs associated with the effects of terrorism, there are also economic
costs to terrorism.  According to scholars, the terrorist attack committed could have greats effects on
the international economic system. For example, “after the 2001 attacks [on the United States],
airlines suffered major financial losses and continue to feel the impact of terrorism. It is estimated
that the global airline industry lost $18 billion in 2001 and $13 billion in 2002 following the attacks”.
Furthermore, it could also effect how states act. For example, a state, following a terror attack, or
even a threat of terrorism, may began increasing their budgets on surveillance, security, and
counterterrorism measures. Or, they may also alter their foreign policy actions or relationships with
states following an attack.

Bibliography

Books

 Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War.

 V.N. Khanna, International Relations Paperback 

 P. B. Rathod, International Relations Concepts And Theories
 Peu Ghosh, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
References

 Crenshaw, M. (1981). The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics

 Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York, New York. Oxford University Press.
 Viotti, P. R. & Kauppi, M. V. (2013). International Relations and World Politics (5th Edition). New York,
New York. Pearson.