Abstract

The term “international” refers to the movement of resources – goods, services, capital and labor – across international boundaries. Such movement may be voluntary, in which case it qualifies as a socioeconomic phenomenon, or involuntary. Involuntary movement of resources may be small-scale or (socioeconomically) microscopic, or it may be macroscopic – a large-scale transfer of resources over an international boundary. When resources are mobilized on a large scale and without the consent of the target State, the event amounts by definition to an international conflict as it challenges the very ontological foundation of the classic State system – an international boundary. However, in the context of globalization, a shift has occurred from inter-State conflicts to a microscopic form of conflict – often referred to as international “terrorism.” Unlike a classic inter-State conflict, international “terrorism” is not a macroscopic (political) but a microscopic (socio-economic) phenomenon and, as such, a “traveling” conflict: it does not target international boundaries but socioeconomic differences – differences in language, race, ethnicity or religion. As such, international “terrorism” is not only one of the causes of deceleration of globalization, but also a symptom of its systemic failure. While globalization has involved liberalization of cross-border movement of goods, services and capital, it has not involved liberalization of cross-border movement of labor. The root cause of international “terrorism” lies in a systemic denial of socio-economic opportunity.