One of the major problems, if not the major one, the study of the International Relations confronts take place when our object of study becomes a subject of study. The social sciences confront with this methodological weakness every day but our field of study demands us to transcend beyond subjectivity and schematize the processes and interactions that different actors take as course of action. Otherwise, we would fall into an anthropologic study; it is as simple as that. The actions of what we call terrorism do not adjust to processes established inside regularity; it is because of it that these actors, in Esther Barbé's terminology, receive the name of illegitimate actors. They are exempt from the rules under States and other actors structure themselves.

 

 

But, if something confirms the reaction of these different actors, it is that peripheral configuration of units that were read as minors, because of their illegitimacy, begins to get blurred. The first observation that I would like to realize is that, in effect, acts, facts, as the occurred, undress slightly happy characteristics for those whom write about human´s social reality. To begin with, it faces us unfiltered with the human condition, the greatest labyrinth that, scientifically, we can approach. We cannot just mask acts like products or sub-products of previous processes. It would be lie to ourselves searching for an easy exit; trying to simplify the matter. If we seek to tie the events to action/reaction logic we will be seeking to ally of a temporary subjectivity, which methodologically already would chain us. Questions as "Who throw the first stone?" They are semantic questions, known semantic. The second observation is the geography of international reality. What present day increasingly clarifies us are the tectonic faults of reality. International reality might be described as the events and processes by which political units are structured and settled their interests. These processes have a visible face, a surface: the international regimes under which the behaviors of units are formed and regulated. But below them, bigger and long-lived historical trends get accommodated and work as pillars of our relations. One of these pillars is Religion; which does not have place in the main configuration of international reality agents. We speak about States, organizations, companies. All modern social collective groups. As a field of study, we have constructed an eminently modern building. This is why mainstream of our studies get overcome, because the materiality of reality imposed since the 19th century seduced much more than the slow but very long lived structure of ideas. The study of Power prevailed over what or who was gaining, reproducing or managing it. Economy, High Politics and the militarization of themselves raised then, from the current vision of our world, as the main engines of interactions in the international plane. Can Economy, High Politics or the militarization of these explain the behavior of dismissed agents by our social sciences? They cannot. Because the base by which it was and it is constructed the study of international reality has been economized, as long as it is proceeded to analyze from rationality. We elaborate theory for a subject with a manual. Limit is inevitable. To mathematize human behavior not only is irrelevant but stupid. The third observation is a result of the previous one. The cracks, the faults of this underground field of reality,

 

The cracks, the faults of this underground field of reality, get waved by the collapse of identities. Identity is a social construction. As for international relations this phenomenology spreads from an individual to a collective status. And identity, if something History of our species has proven, is has a breaking point. It did not exist and will no exist a social pangea.  We reproduce a biological phenomenon; the cellular division. We do not join, we separate ourselves and regroup: we create subsystems. To understand this is to realize that identity layers finally break: Europeans, Judeo-Christians, westerns, civilized … The phenomenon of modern Islam achieved something unthinkable years ago; we have returned to a eurocentrism. Not necessarily because Power happens there, but because the object of study does: Human being as such. The patient growth of Islam in Europe put abreast different subsystems that under a western rationality were believed possible of assimilation. It was thought that a bubble would absorb the other one in a natural way, repeating previous migratory processes. Migratory processes that replicated modern groups identities. Those who migrated were citizens of perimeter states; of modern social groups. What today collapse are two subsystems of completely different roots. They are not the same thing and they will never be. They understand themselves different and proudly relentless. The problem of terrorism has also shades encased in territoriality.

 

On one hand we have the global reading that equates the tutor of the system, the United States, with different armed manifestations of Islam that operate under numerous names in multiple theatres of operations, as a result of North American externality. What they have presented as "War on Terror" is the paradigm under which this phenomenology has been naturalized. But what today we understand as terrorism is reproduced focally in other latitudes, by other edges, and from other times. And the multiplicity of layers and focal points in which these circumstances are reproduced, make impossible for traditional agents to approach.  Even more if the supposed rector organ (the UN) is a scene of explicit gatopardism, through temporal changes of the Security Council. This is, rotating secondary members in pursuit of open the discussion of central matters. The problem also presents difficulties according to its condition. Thus, inside Islamic paragraph an endogenous schism reproduces among koranic readings that translate in new battlefields. An expression of this was the famous Arabic Spring. It was thought that change of a variable, the political administration of power, would allow the reorganization of society. The problem was, and remains to be, that society readings are seen from a specific prism: ours. We project unique characteristics upon all fields of study thinking that we all are equal, or at least that we organize in the same way. Absurd. This endogenity is externalized, is centrifuged and turns into an exogenous characteristic of Islamic states. Therefore, it accumulates layer after layer of differences and interests that makes the situation even more complex; and in some cases paradoxically they delay it (Syria for case). The Emirates, the Saudis, Qatar, Iran, have turned into deployed agents. They are States with stretching capacity (by means of mercenaries) there where endogenous discussion takes place. And this discussion is, and must be (in pursuit of arranging the system), arbitrated by system´s actors. In time we will see how the system legitimate actors decide to approach this topic. Hardly could be attacked from supranational institutions because of the same characteristics of those whom they face. Also, it will be necessary to see if licenses are accepted to elaborate a response and if these licenses will be free of asymmetry judgments; something that, until today, has not happened yet. This is because exercises of power above the surface continue in force and any power space not occupied must be occupied. No matter what, above surface "sum zero" games doctrine remain reigning in international reality. Cooperation features are still means for subsequent ends of medium scope.