Mendelsohn, Barak. "Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda Network". Review of International Studies, Vol.31, No.1 (2005): 45-68.

Mendelsohn, Barak. "Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda Network". Review of International Studies, Vol.31, No.1 (2005): 45-68.

• There are two popular views of the current war on terror: the first, articulated by the US, is that the war is between lawful states of all varieties and terrorist groups who seek to subvert the international order of state sovereignty; the second is that the war represents a 'clash of civilizations' between a Muslim world and the Christian world (45-46).
• Contemporary approaches in IR theory to threats to the international order, mainly the English School, are restricted to state actors. Currently, there is not any theoretical work on responses to challenges to the international system by non-state actors (46).
• There is a source mine on different definitions of 'sovereignty' in IR on page 47.
• The English School of IR, led by Hedley Bull, developed the concepts of international society and the international system. The international system is the interactions between states, whereas international society is the framework of norms and common assumptions which govern international interactions during that period (48).
• The contemporary international society is maintained by the actions of constituent states, and assisted by institutions like diplomacy, balance of power, recognition of great powers, and international law (49).
• International society responds to perceived threats against it, with the contemporary societal order most severely punishing wars of aggression. Revolutionary states also constitute a major threat to international society (49-50).
• Violent non-state actors challenges the international societal order by subverting the principle of state sovereignty, undermining the privileged position of the state in the use of force, and rejecting common limitations on the use of force, especially against civilians (50).
• These violent non-state actors challenge the entirety of the international society by rejecting the principles and authority of the UN, threaten the ability of state to guarantee security for their populace, or may provoke an unacceptably brutal response from the hegemon, leading to a breakdown in the normative order of the international society (51, 53).
• Religious terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, pose a special threat to the international society because they deliberately reject the current state-based system. Accordingly, while other terrorist groups have limited themselves to attacking one state, religious terrorist groups are a potential threat to all states (54).
• Religious terrorism is also a unique challenge to state sovereignty, since it involves a conflict between national identity and strongly held religious identity. Adoption of a fundamentalist religious position in these circumstances necessitates a rejection of state authority, including of the distinctions imposed by borders (55).
• Most religious terrorist groups challenge state sovereignty, but not the international society, as they declare wars against specific states and attempt to establish religious rule within national borders. It is groups which see all states as their enemies, like Al Qaeda, that constitute a threat to the international society and state sovereignty (56, 67).
• The distinction between these two types of terrorist organizations are not clearly set, and some exhibit traits of both. Iran, for example, restricts its revolution to national borders, but also sponsors religious terrorists in other states, although often for strategic rather than ideological reasons (56-57).
• Terrorist groups can also end up being a force that reinforces and strengthens the international society because the violence they create leads states to dedicate enormous amounts of resources towards preserving and reinforcing elements of the international society, making it stronger than it was previously (51, 54, 66).
• The juridical and political content of Islam does make it more suitable for a total theocratic goals espoused by religious extremist groups, but this is not the primary reason why most religious terrorism is Islamic. The larger reason is that the state-based system is failing in the Middle East more than elsewhere, causing people to revert back to older religious identities (57).
• The first enemies identified by Al Qaeda are the corrupt dictatorial Arab regimes of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. Rather than pursuing an Islamic foreign policy, these states support foreign military attacks on Muslims. Domestically, they focus on getting rich rather than building infrastructure and welfare system for the poor. Osama bin Laden saw the ultimate source of corruption and perfidy among the Arab regimes as the 'Zionist-Crusader alliance' led by the USA. Mr. bin Laden believed that if the USA is defeated, then its client states in the Middle East will also die (58-59).
• Osama bin Laden claims that the USA is at war with the religion of Islam, and is using its client states in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to destroy the faith. He cites multiple US actions -- the invasion of Iraq, embargoes on Bosnia, intervention in Somalia -- as evidence of this assertion (60).
• Al Qaeda dislikes many elements of the contemporary international society because it sees them as covertly repressing Muslims and assisting the USA. It asserts that the UN is illegitimate, for failing to protect Muslims and for recognizing corrupt Muslim rulers. The main challenge posed to the international society, however, is that recognition of state governments is determined only by adherence to religious principle, not international law or any other factors (62-63).
• The violent tactics of Al Qaeda also pose a distinct threat to the international society, as they explicitly reject international law in their exceptionally violent methods. The organization's desire to acquire a WMD poses a particular threat to state domination of violent force (64-65).
• Osama bin Laden blames the United States for creating the contemporary state-based international system as a tool to divide the Muslim world and force the Muslim states into a self-defeating internecine competition (61).
• Al Qaeda's vision of a future Islamic society is extremely vague. It is implied that artificial borders between Muslim states will be abolished, but not what form of government they will be replaced by. Osama bin Laden does not appear to endorse further war against non-Muslims, envisioning peace and trade after the liberation of the Muslim world (60, 67).

The end point of this article appears to be the simple claim that religious terrorist groups can also (like revolutionary states) constitute challenges to the international society theorized by the English School of IR. Like, this guy wrote a lot of stuff to make a claim that simple.