Radicalism: Difficulties of Definitions
( Pp. 77-81)

The article examines the terms «radicalization», «deradicalization», «counteraction to radicalization». The relationship between radicalization, extremism and terrorism is examined. Historically, «radicalism» - as opposed to «extremism» - does not necessarily have negative connotations and is not synonymous with terrorism. The purpose of this article is to try to reveal the complexities of defining the phenomenon of «radicalism». The concept of «radicalism» has largely changed its meaning in the course of history. Radicalism can only be understood in terms of its distance or basic positions in the political spectrum of a given society. Radicalism is much less problematic for a democratic society than extremism, since real radicals tend to be more pragmatic and open to critical discourse. Radicals can be reformist and non-violent, while extremists tend to be closed-minded, intolerant, anti-democratic and willing to use all means, including deception, to achieve their goals. Both radicalism and extremism can be understood only in terms of their distance or basic positions in the political spectrum of a given society. That said, it makes sense, however, to distinguish between radicalism and extremism on the basis of the historical record of both phenomena. This study examines radicalization not only at the micro-level of «vulnerable persons», but also at the meso-level of the «radical environment» and at the macro-level of «radicalization of public opinion and political parties». Radicalization is a process that can occur on both sides of conflict dyads, and challenges several widely held assumptions. Various programs to counter radicalization and deradicalization have been studied.

Urusova L.K., (2021), RADICALISM: DIFFICULTIES OF DEFINITIONS. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 3 => 77-81.

Arun Kundnani, Radikalizatsiya: puteshestvie kontseptsii , Race Class, Tom 54, № 2 (oktyabr -dekabr 2018 g.), S. 13-20.
Dzhenkins B. Issledovanie terrorizma: opredelitel nye problemy//Daydzhest prava. - Santa-Monika. 1980, №8. S. 101-120.
Dorrin F. Prichiny i posledstviya terroristicheskikh aktov// Zakon i pravo. - Kembridzh. 2005. Tom 12. № 3. S. 124-131.
Kabanov P.A. Politicheskiy terrorizm: prichiny i nekotorye mery preduprezhdeniya //Sledovatel . 2019. №3. S. 24-29.
Laker V.R. Terrorizm, ekstremizm, radikalizm: istoricheskoe i kriticheskoe issledovanie. Oksfordskiy universitet, 2007. S. 208.
Novikov I. A. Molodezhnyy radikalizm kak faktor deviantnogo povedeniya: sotsiokul turnyy analiz: avtoref. diss . kand. sots. nauk: 22.00.06. M., 2016. S.9
Urusova L.KH. Agressivnost kak forma proyavleniya deviantnogo povedeniya // Vestnik Vladimirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. Aleksandra Grigor evicha i Nikolaya Grigor evicha Stoletovykh. Seriya: Pedagogicheskie i psikhologicheskie nauki. 2016. № 25 (44). S. 128-132.
Urusova, L.KH. Terrorizm: trudnosti definitsiy/L.KH. Urusova// Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2020. T.13. №4. S. 87-90.
Urusova, L.KH., Kurochkin A.S. Kontseptual nye slozhnosti opredeleniya pravovoy kategorii agressii/L.KH. Urusova, A.S. Kurochkin// Filosofiya prava. 2020. №3 (94). S. 70-74.
KHarrison T. Problemy terroristicheskikh deystviy//Evropeyskiy nauchnyy zhurnal prava. - Del ta Dzh. Press. 2019. Tom 5. № 1. S. 183-189.

terrorism, crime, radicalism, difficulties of definitions, personality, legality, statehood, global terrorism.