GLO5501 Globalisation and Terrorism
Assessment Task 2: Research Essay
Type: Thematic or Case‑Study Essay
Word Count: 4000 words
Weighting: 60% of final grade
Deadline: Refer to the module LMS for the 2026 submission date
Learning Outcomes Assessed
- Critically evaluate theoretical frameworks linking globalisation and political violence.
- Apply concepts of global governance, networked power, and transnational risk to real‑world terrorist events.
- Construct a sustained, theoretically informed argument supported by scholarly evidence and appropriate case material.
- Demonstrate independent research skills using primary and secondary sources, correctly formatted in Chicago style.
Assignment Overview
This module has examined the deep, often contradictory relationship between globalising processes and the emergence of transnational terrorism. Your final essay requires you to engage directly with that relationship. You will develop an independent research question that interrogates whether, how, and why globalisation has reshaped terrorist practice, state response, or the very meaning of security. The essay must move beyond description and into critical analysis, using theoretical tools from the first half of the module to structure an empirically grounded argument. You may select one of two essay formats: a traditional thematic essay or a focused case‑study essay. Both formats demand the same level of analytical rigour, engagement with the module reading list, and adherence to scholarly conventions.
Essay Format Options
Option 1: Thematic Essay
Pose a question that tackles one of the module’s organising themes directly. A thematic essay traces a concept across multiple actors, events, or time periods. You might ask whether globalisation necessarily undermines state‑level democracy, whether global governance adds anything useful to our understanding of world politics, or whether transnational terrorism is fundamentally ungovernable. The question you devise must generate a clear, contestable argument. The strongest thematic essays do not merely list examples; they use cases selectively to test and refine a theoretical claim.
Example thematic question:
“To what extent can we say that globalisation created a parallel infrastructure that enabled the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001?”
Option 2: Case‑Study Essay
Select a single global actor and evaluate its influence on a specific issue area within a narrow timeframe. The actor may be a state, an international organisation, a non‑governmental organisation, or a transnational corporation. You must then choose an issue that actor has actively engaged with and a discrete period or event through which to measure impact. Your essay will answer two interconnected questions: how much difference did the actor make to the way the issue was addressed or resolved, and what explains the degree of influence it wielded? A successful case‑study essay uses the chosen case to illuminate larger structural forces in global politics, linking empirical detail back to module theories of power, governance, and globalisation.
Requirements
- Submit a 4000‑word essay (excluding bibliography and any illustrative appendices).
- Formulate your own question within the parameters of one chosen format. The question must appear at the top of the essay.
- Engage substantively with at least eight sources from the module reading list. Additional independent scholarly research is expected.
- Newspaper articles may be used sparingly as primary evidence; the analytical backbone must come from peer‑reviewed books and journal articles.
- Format the essay according to The Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition) notes and bibliography system.
- Include a title page with your student ID, module code, essay question, and word count.
- Construct an argument, not a summary. The thesis must be stated early, developed logically, and tested against counter‑evidence.
Marking Criteria and Rubric
| Criterion | Outstanding (80–100%) | Proficient (60–79%) | Developing (40–59%) | Inadequate (0–39%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis and Argumentation | A sharply focused, original thesis drives the entire essay; counter‑arguments are anticipated and refuted with precision. | A clear thesis is sustained; engagement with contrary views is present but may be uneven. | A general position is discernible but lacks consistency or nuance; counter‑evidence is absent or mishandled. | No identifiable thesis; the essay describes rather than argues. |
| Theoretical Engagement | Module theories are applied creatively to illuminate the case; the essay demonstrates a sophisticated grasp of concepts such as networked power, risk society, or parallel globalisation. | Relevant theories are accurately explained and applied; conceptual connections are made but may remain underdeveloped. | Theory is mentioned but used superficially or inaccurately; the link between concept and evidence is weak. | The essay lacks any meaningful theoretical framework. |
| Use of Evidence | Evidence is drawn from an extensive range of high‑quality scholarly sources; each piece is analysed, not merely cited, and integrated seamlessly into the argument. | Solid evidence base with relevant scholarly sources; some tendency to report rather than analyse data. | Relies on a narrow set of sources or leans too heavily on non‑scholarly material; evidence is used descriptively. | Insufficient or inappropriate evidence; over‑reliance on lecture notes or non‑credible websites. |
| Structure and Clarity | Logical, elegant organisation; paragraphs build cumulatively towards the conclusion; transitions are seamless. | Clear structure with identifiable introduction, body, and conclusion; occasional lapses in paragraph coherence. | An attempt at structure is visible but the essay reads as a series of disconnected points; signposting is minimal. | Disorganised; difficult to follow the line of reasoning. |
| Referencing and Presentation | Flawless Chicago style; every assertion is properly sourced; bibliography is comprehensive and correctly formatted. | Minor and infrequent errors in footnote or bibliography format; all sources are accounted for. | Frequent referencing errors; inconsistent use of Chicago style; missing bibliographic entries. | Poor or absent referencing; failure to meet academic integrity standards. |
Write a 4000‑word research essay examining how globalisation reshapes terrorism, using either a thematic or case‑study approach and engaging with scholarly sources in Chicago style.
Submit a 15‑page essay critically evaluating the links between globalisation and terrorist violence through a theoretically grounded, empirically supported argument with Chicago referencing.
Complete a final module essay that assesses the extent to which globalisation created a parallel infrastructure for the 9/11 attacks or related terrorist phenomena, applying module theories to a focused case.
Globalisation as a Parallel Infrastructure for 9/11: A Sample Essay Opening
Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen’s concept of a “parallel globalization of terror” provides the sharpest lens through which to understand the September 11 attacks as an event constructed within, and enabled by, the very infrastructures of global modernity. The nineteen hijackers did not circumvent globalisation; they inhabited its arteries. They moved through international aviation hubs, wired money through formal banking channels, and exploited the West’s own open societies to acquire flight training. Rasmussen argues that al‑Qaeda built a clandestine network that mirrored the legitimate networks of states and corporations, a “parallel” structure that could not have functioned outside the deregulated spaces globalisation had created. The attacks, therefore, were less an assault from the pre‑modern periphery than a violent reflection of the network society itself, a dark symmetry that challenges any neat separation between global integration and its discontents. The evidence suggests that globalisation did not simply inspire the 9/11 plot; it furnished the operational architecture without which that plot could never have moved from conception to execution, a process detailed in Rasmussen’s “A parallel globalization of terror” in Cooperation and Conflict.
Networked Vulnerability and the Retreat from Hierarchy
Rasmussen’s structural insight gains empirical weight when examined alongside Audrey Kurth Cronin’s argument that conventional state responses consistently lag behind a terrorist adversary that has already adapted to the networked age. Cronin demonstrates that the very features that make globalisation efficient also make it acutely vulnerable: containerised shipping, just‑in‑time supply chains, and digitised financial transfers all lower the barriers to illicit movement. Al‑Qaeda’s finance chiefs did not need to smuggle suitcases of cash; they wired funds through correspondent banking relationships that processed millions of legitimate transactions daily, losing the transfers in plain sight. Cronin, in her 2002 study, observed that governments were fighting a twentieth‑century organisational war against a twenty‑first‑century networked enemy, an observation that remains relevant because subsequent iterations of jihadist violence have only deepened their reliance on globalised tools. The proliferation of encrypted communication platforms and cryptocurrency exchanges in the two decades after 2001 confirms rather than contradicts the core thesis: globalisation continuously generates the material conduits that violent non‑state actors co‑opt, making a purely territorial response insufficient. Students who incorporate such techno‑structural evidence alongside ideological analysis routinely produce essays that score in the upper grade bands because they treat globalisation as a material condition, not merely a context.
Choosing Between Thematic and Case‑Study Formats for This Question
When students tackle a question about globalisation and 9/11, one recurring dilemma concerns whether to write a broad thematic survey or to anchor the argument in a single actor case study. A thematic approach allows you to trace the concept of “parallel globalisation” across multiple dimensions: financial flows, travel, media coverage, and diaspora politics. The risk lies in offering a thin, impressionistic overview that never delves deep enough into any one mechanism to sustain a critical argument. A case‑study approach, conversely, might select al‑Qaeda as the actor and constrain the timeframe to 1996–2001, asking how the organisation leveraged global financial and communication networks to execute the attacks. This narrower frame demands granular detail from sources such as the 9/11 Commission Report and the scholarly analyses of Marc Sageman and Faisal Devji, and it rewards students who can show exactly how a particular actor exploited specific global nodes. Bruce Hoffman’s work reinforces this point by distinguishing between the organisational logic of traditional hierarchical terror and the flat, distributed model that globalisation enabled. The strongest essays often blend the two strategies: they anchor the analysis in a tight case while drawing thematic conclusions that speak to the broader relationship between global integration and political violence. A frequent misstep is to treat the question as an invitation to narrate the events of September 11, a descriptive choice that cannot meet the analytical standards of the rubric. Instead, use the events as a test site for a clearly articulated theoretical claim about the nature of globalisation itself.
- Frame the essay around a “to what extent” proposition that requires you to weigh evidence on both sides rather than simply accumulate supporting examples.
- Distinguish carefully between globalisation as a structural facilitator of opportunity and globalisation as a direct ideological cause; the two are analytically distinct and conflating them weakens the thesis.
- Integrate counter‑arguments from scholars like Michael Mousseau, who links terrorism to market civilisation tensions, to demonstrate critical engagement with the full debate.
- Use Chicago footnote citations to build a scholarly conversation in the notes themselves, adding commentary that strengthens your authority without interrupting the essay’s flow.
References
- Cronin, Audrey Kurth. “Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism.” International Security 27, no. 3 (2002): 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1162/01622880260553624.
- Freytag, Andreas, Jens J. Krüger, Daniel Meierrieks, and Friedrich Schneider. “Globalization and Terrorism: The Role of Economic and Social Integration.” European Journal of Political Economy 63 (2020): 101879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101879.
- Phillips, Brian J. “How Did 9/11 Change Terrorism?” International Studies Review 22, no. 4 (2020): 876–900. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz069.
- Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby. “‘A Parallel Globalization of Terror’: 9-11, Security and Globalization.” Cooperation and Conflict 37, no. 3 (2002): 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836702037003001.
- Stohl, Michael. “Terrorism and Globalization.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.500.
Assessment: Annotated Bibliography and Essay Outline
Week 8, Formative Task. To prepare for the final research essay, you must submit an annotated bibliography of six to eight scholarly sources directly relevant to your chosen essay question. Each annotation should summarise the source’s core argument, explain its relevance to your thesis, and note any limitations. Alongside the bibliography, include a one‑page essay outline that states your provisional thesis, maps the main sections of your argument, and indicates which source you will use to support each section. This formative task receives written feedback from the module tutor and is designed to ensure your research trajectory is viable before you begin full drafting.