Discover our other sites:

You might be looking for...

THIS CONTENT IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY University of Oslo - read more

Researchers: No guarantee against another terrorist attack, despite increased surveillance

77 people were killed on 22 July 2011 in Norway. 'Never again' became a national promise. 15 years later, terrorism researchers cannot rule out that a similar attack could happen again.

The 'Lysningen' memorial on Utøya, featuring the names and ages of the 69 people killed on the island by Anders Behring Breivik on July 22, 2011.

(Photo: Torstein Bøe / NTB)

Gro Lien Garbo Gro Lien Garbo COMMUNICATIONS ADVISER

Presented by: Presented by: University of Oslo

Published 9 July 2026 - 00:01

“A society that would be able to guarantee against terrorist attacks is, unfortunately, probably a society we would not want,” says Jacob Ravndal, a professor at the Norwegian Police University College.

He is one of several researchers affiliated with the Center for Research on Extremism (C-REX) at the University of Oslo.

They have recently published the book Right-Wing Extremism in Norway after 22 July – Attitudes, Actors, Mobilisation, and Resistance.

Small movement, serious threat

“Right-wing extremism in Norway is a small but serious security threat," says Anders Ravik Jupskås, head of C-REX and editor of the publication.

He points out that the organised right-wing extremist movement is small and that the groups that do exist are only minimally involved in violence. In addition, support for violent methods is low in Norway.

“At the same time, the threat is serious because there have been a disproportionately high number of terrorist attacks in Norway. We also have a fair amount of serious racist violence that flies under the radar. Such attacks can have enormous consequences, as the 22 July terrorist attack showed us with absolute clarity 15 years ago,” he stresses.

Jupskås notes that this can involve severe violence that is not necessarily categorised as terrorism but should nevertheless be regarded as right-wing extremist violence.

Sweden and Norway have the most lone-actor terrorists

When it comes to what they call 'the most visible part of the spectrum,' meaning the most serious acts of violence, the terrorism researchers say that the level has dropped significantly since the 1990s.

However, Norway stands out particularly negatively in terms of the number of lone-actor terrorists – terrorists who operate alone.

“When we look at attacks carried out by lone actors whose aim is mass killing, Norway ranks second in Western Europe. Sweden tops the list. Two Nordic welfare states dominate this statistic,” says Jacob Ravndal.

Although the overall numbers are low, he considers the trend worrying.

“When we as researchers look back at the 15 years that have passed since the worst terrorist attack hit Norway, we speculate whether there's something about the welfare state itself that may enable such radicalisation processes,” he says.

Ravndal points, among other things, to the fact that the welfare state can make it possible for relatively resourceful individuals, who speak English and have good internet access, to sit undisturbed in their childhood bedrooms living off various welfare benefits, and immerse themselves very deeply in extremist content.

“Those who have ended up as solo terrorists share certain characteristics. There's an overrepresentation of particular mental health conditions, especially along the autism spectrum. We see neglect early in life and, in general, a difficult life situation,” he says.

Two men standing outside a modern building with steps and glass windows. — Researchers Jacob Ravndal and Anders Ravik Jupskås discuss the threat posed by right-wing extremism 15 years after July 22, 2011.

Small organised movement – but strong online hate

In other respects, Norway is an exception in the European context. Attempts to build right-wing extremist street movements such as the Norwegian Defence League, Pegida, SIAN, and the Nordic Resistance Movement have largely failed.

“This is a form of ‘imported right-wing extremism,’ where the initiatives come from abroad but fail to gain a foothold here. Norway scores low both on street mobilisation and on right-wing extremist attitudes,” says Jupskås.

The head of C-REX notes that around 6 per cent of the population has “some sympathies in a right-wing extremist direction,” while only 0.3 per cent clearly support such views.

Norway also has no right-wing extremist parties with meaningful electoral support, according to Jupskås.

He is, however, concerned about another negative development.

“Harassment and hate directed at politicians, researchers, and minorities threaten, in my view, to erode democracy. People withdraw from public life. We then risk that the institutions that are supposed to represent all of us become less representative,” he says.

Jupskås believes that this type of erosion of liberal democratic values will be important to understand better in order to prevent terrorism more effectively.

Norwegian Police Security Service between security and freedom

One of the most difficult topics to address today, according to the terrorism researchers, is increased surveillance. They point out that the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) and the police have received steadily broader powers in the years following the July 22 terrorist attack.

“Today, individuals can receive a visit from PST at home because they have expressed extreme but lawful views on social media. In the best case, this may have a dampening effect. In the worst case, it makes them more hardened and more secretive. The effect is very difficult to measure,” says Ravndal.

He calls for a public discussion about where the line should be drawn for political surveillance.

At the same time, Jupskås stresses that Norway still has strict rules requiring PST to have ‘concrete grounds’ for surveilling individuals.

In the evaluation of the terrorist attack against Pride on 25 June 2022 in Oslo, the commission pointed out that PST had reduced its focus on Arfan Bhatti precisely because they lacked such grounds, even though planning for the attack was likely already underway.

“We ended up commending PST for following the law, even though the outcome was tragic. This illustrates that we can never make ourselves completely safe from terrorism if we are to adhere to liberal democratic principles,” says Ravndal.

He reminds us that today’s PST is partly a result of the strong criticism expressed by the former Lund Commission regarding unlawful surveillance of the political left.

“We need to ask whether we are in the process of repeating some of the same patterns – just with new perceived enemies,” says Ravndal.

A security problem or a care problem?

A recurring point in research on right-wing extremism is that the link between attitudes and actions is more complex than is often reflected in public debate.

“Many of the most notorious hate-spewers online already have a criminal record. They cross boundaries in several areas of life, not just politically,” says Jupskås.

Ravndal believes the time has come for society to have a more fundamental discussion about how we view extremism:

“In a well-functioning liberal democracy, it's often those who fall outside the system who become its opponents. The question is whether we should primarily approach this as a security problem – or as a care and welfare problem,” he says.

Jupskås underscores the importance of strong institutions and high levels of trust both between citizens and towards the authorities. Work, education, local communities, and voluntary organisations are important building blocks in a democracy.

“To prevent terrorism, it's also important to pay particularly close attention to those who do not cope well in a society that, for the great majority, works very well,” he says.

Listen to the Norwegian podcast episode below:

———

Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no