1 Terrorism and Peacebuilding Ioannis Tellidis This chapter examines the relationship between Terrorism Studies and the practice(s) of counter-terrorism, and Peace Studies and the practice(s) of peacebuilding. The chapter seeks to uncover the political implications of the conceptualisations of both ‘terrorism’ and ‘peace’ in order to then evaluate how peace was sought (or not) to be built in terrorist conflicts. A brief chronology of long-established approaches in each field uncovers the basic deficiencies with which these two concepts have been dealt with by both academics and practitioners, resulting in a shared definition of objectives: counter-terrorism’s preoccupation with the annihilation of terrorists, and peacebuilding’s anxiety with domination and imposition – resulting in both of them failing to provide anything other than a victor’s peace. The emergence of more critical approaches in both fields have begun rectifying those understandings but more daring epistemological and methodological steps need to be undertaken. The chapter concludes by identifying some of the obstacles and limitations facing these more recent approaches and tries to identify the scope of future research. Introduction At first glance, the concepts of ‘terrorism’ and ‘peace’ are bound in a dyadic relationship: whoever fights ‘terrorism’ (wherever it emanates from and however defined) does so in order to achieve ‘peace’. Particularly in the post-9/11 setting, this dichotomy has been reinforced in narrative terms. The liberal democratic states that are principle-, freedoms- and rights-guided are fighting the evilness, sadism and disregard for human life of the terrorists. In other words, those fighting terrorism are the good guys whereas the terrorists are always the bad ones. This narrative is so potent that non- and anti-democratic regimes find it easier to legitimise – via internationalisation (de Jonge Oudraat and Marret 2010) – their (usually excessive) violence against groups that question the authority of the state. Usually, they do this by claiming that said violence was necessary in their fight against terrorism. Although the picture painted above is a simple one, the simple truth is that there is nothing simple in the relationship between the concepts – their definitions, their understandings and, crucially, the deployment of the latter. Many attempts to secure peace, for example, were driven not by a desire for peace but for complete annihilation of the opponent, thus fuelling the conflict further (Tellidis 2018a). In other instances, the aforementioned dichotomisation between good and bad has led to the exclusion and even criminalisation of social groups living in the same space as the terrorist group (Lederach et al. 2011). Further still, genuine efforts to engage armed groups in dialogue and create the conditions necessary for the cessation of conflict were equally condemned because, by continuing their efforts and activities, peacebuilders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in such regions would have meant facing serious legal repercussions (Cortright et al. 2011; Haspeslagh 2013). Examples like these make evident the complexity of the relationship between ‘terrorism’ (or ‘counter-terrorism’, more precisely) and ‘peacebuilding’. This chapter aims to take a closer look at the ways in which the research and practice(s) of ‘terrorism’ may interconnect but also clash with those of ‘peace’ and peacebuilding in particular. It will do so, first by providing a brief chronology of how the academic and policy conceptualisations of ‘terrorism’ and ‘peace’ developed over the years. The chapter will then evaluate the political implications generated by these conceptualisations. This will be key in assessing whether current ontological,