OSTRACIZING PARIAHS? WHY U.S. TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS OFTEN FAIL

Security designations have become major tools of international statecraft to tackle such issues as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and territorial invasion. Since 9/11, U.S. terrorist designations sanctioning non-state armed groups (NSAGs), and affiliated persons, have multiplied. While some policymakers present terrorist designations as silver-bullet policies, other assessments depict them as inconsequential or harmful. Through quantitative analyses of the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list, the IR literature posits that designations reduce attacks of targets operating in the territory of a U.S. ally or targets with limited financial adaptability.This dissertation proposes an alternative theoretical and methodological approach to understand the variation in U.S. terrorist designations’ outcomes. Building on a deviant case and different literatures, I advance a dual isolation-based and motives-based argument to examine two prominent designation programs: the FTO list and the Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) list. As these programs aim to ostracize, I suggest that only strategic designations directed at connected targets—NSAGs relying on support networks in which the United States has leverage—are impactful and effective, all else equal. Disconnected and established targets are either insulated from designations or sufficiently resilient to withstand designation’s material and social costs. Non-strategic designations are generally ineffective because they do not primarily aim to undermine targets’ capabilities. To test my argument, I use 12 case studies following diverse, longitudinal, and most similar case selection methods for cross-case comparisons. In addition to assessing attack trends—the favored proxy for NSAGs’ capabilities in related studies—I rely on an original FTO capability index to evaluate designations’ impacts. I use process-tracing to control for existing theories and intervening variables, such as kinetic counterterrorism methods and multilateral regimes. I find that isolation type and designation motives offer a better framework to assess designations’ outcomes. The dissertation also contributes to research on the humanitarian side effects of terrorist designations, with the hypothesis-generating case of the conflict in northeastern Nigeria. Through qualitative and quantitative analyses, the study suggests that: 1) terrorist designations hindered humanitarian assistance to civilians in conflict-affected areas; and 2) the FTO designation of Boko Haram was associated with an increase in conflict intensity.