IR share a relatively wide vocabulary, such as political violence, crime, security, deterrence, human rights, and war on terror. In the case of the 'war on terror', similar concerns and conceptual tools have increasingly surfaced on both sides. Carl Schmitt's theory of the exception has been widely debated in International Relations (IR), while criminology has so far largely turned to other concepts, such as state crime, moral panic or risk, to explore the 'war on terror'. This article argues that engaging with debates about theories of the exception and exceptionalism in IR could lead to a fruitful dialogue between the two disciplines. It unpacks the state of exception as a useful tool for apprehending the constitution of domestic and global power relations by introducing an argument about how the 'war on terror' is simultaneously transgressing and underwriting the law. Understanding the ways in which exceptionalism operates will help critical scholarship in both IR and criminology to further discuss the deteriorating effects of the 'war on terror' on political communities and social transformation. References