Why do states prefer one counter-terrorism policy over the other? In this paper I argue that these decisions are based not so much on objectifiable security factors but on domestic political considerations. States do not choose counter-terrorism policies because they are the most effective. They implement these policies because they (1) serve a domestic political purpose, and (2) are realizable in the context of political and societal opposition. I apply discourse network analysis and the advocacy coalition framework to substantiate my thesis. I show, how political and societal actors in Austria exploit the debate on counter-terrorism to further their particular interests and to gain additional competences and resources that go beyond the initial requirements.
