5 REASONS why there is NO agreed global definition of TERRORISM
Question: Why is it so difficult to define terrorism? Why is there no agreed global and universal definition of terrorism? Why is there no United Nations treaty that says: this is the comprehensive definition of terrorism which all member states should adopt? Of course, some treaties may describe the motivation of terrorists, or what or who the terrorist target, or particular forms of terrorist offending behavior, eg. hijacking, or financing, or planning a terrorist attack. These treaties may outline key characteristics of terrorism, eg. the deliberate and direct targeting, and killing of non-combatants and civilians, which it is hoped everyone agrees with in words and deed. But beyond peacemeal treaties, there is no global treaty which provides a universal and comprehensive definition of terrorism. What we are left with is each country and each state drafting its own legal definition of terrorism. The UK is no different. Its legal definition is contained in section one of the terrorism act. But while a country's definition of terrorism might share some features with other countries definition of terrorism, it may not be the same. So why is there no global universal and comprehensive definition of terrorism? Let me give you five sticking points towards a global and comprehensive definition of terrorism. The five controversial and contentious issues which prevent a universal consensus over a definition of terrorism.
The first area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should apply to the actions of states in the same way the definition of terrorism applies to non-state groups and individuals. In other words, should the definition of terrorism include state terrorism? The second area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should include criminalizing struggles to oppose colonial domination, foreign occupation, and dictatorships, or criminalize the struggles for independence and self-determination. Or whether the definition of terrorism should provide a specific and express defense to such acts in the legal definition of terrorism itself. In other words, should the definition of terrorism provide a just cause to use force which states groups and individuals could rely on as a defense to any charge of terrorism, the freedom fighter defense? The third area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should include the actions of armed forces and soldiers during an armed conflicts. Or whether members of the armed forces should be excluded from being prosecuted as terrorists if they breach domestic laws and international laws of war. In other words, should soldiers be given a blanket immunity from being prosecuted as terrorists? The fourth area of contention is whether the the definition of terrorism should include the use of particular methods of warfare such as the use of particular prohibited munitions which fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, or force displacement of civilian populations, or the use of bombing campaign which destroys civilian infrastructure and fails to test of proportionality, precaution military necessity, or a total siege leading to starvation, death of civilian people.
And the fifth area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should be subject to that international agreed definition, if ever one is agreed, to avoid concerns that prosecutions are politically motivated. Of course, some activities described can be prosecuted as international crimes, like war crimes, or genocide, in domestic court or the international criminal court, that is, if the country has domestic terrorism laws covering particular activities in place, or the country has ratified the treaty to give jurisdiction to the international criminal court. You might be wondering why an international definition of terrorism is important. Let me give you six reasons as explained by some commentators. One, to ensure actions of terrorists don't go unpunished. Two, to deter future offending terrorist behavior including those who may think of traveling abroad to carry out terrorism and keep people safe over there. Three, to avoid delegitimization of liberation struggles through the threat or actual terrorist prosecution. Four, to avoid government and prosecutors being accused of double standards in applying the law on terrorism Five, to help police and their limited resources to identify and investigate terrorism. And six, to target those who need safeguarding and education from potentially being drawn into terrorism activity here or abroad. To conclude, in the absence of an agreed and universally accepted definition of terrorism, if one is possible, if or when you label someone, or some group, or some state a terrorist, or you fail to place that label of terrorism on someone, some group or some state, this may speak volumes, not just about the act in question, but when it comes to some conflicts and wars, about you and what you believe in and which side you are on.
definition of terrorism
Татьяна Яблокова
Created on October 14, 2024
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Personal card
Explore all templates
Transcript
5 REASONS why there is NO agreed global definition of TERRORISM
Question: Why is it so difficult to define terrorism? Why is there no agreed global and universal definition of terrorism? Why is there no United Nations treaty that says: this is the comprehensive definition of terrorism which all member states should adopt? Of course, some treaties may describe the motivation of terrorists, or what or who the terrorist target, or particular forms of terrorist offending behavior, eg. hijacking, or financing, or planning a terrorist attack. These treaties may outline key characteristics of terrorism, eg. the deliberate and direct targeting, and killing of non-combatants and civilians, which it is hoped everyone agrees with in words and deed. But beyond peacemeal treaties, there is no global treaty which provides a universal and comprehensive definition of terrorism. What we are left with is each country and each state drafting its own legal definition of terrorism. The UK is no different. Its legal definition is contained in section one of the terrorism act. But while a country's definition of terrorism might share some features with other countries definition of terrorism, it may not be the same. So why is there no global universal and comprehensive definition of terrorism? Let me give you five sticking points towards a global and comprehensive definition of terrorism. The five controversial and contentious issues which prevent a universal consensus over a definition of terrorism.
The first area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should apply to the actions of states in the same way the definition of terrorism applies to non-state groups and individuals. In other words, should the definition of terrorism include state terrorism? The second area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should include criminalizing struggles to oppose colonial domination, foreign occupation, and dictatorships, or criminalize the struggles for independence and self-determination. Or whether the definition of terrorism should provide a specific and express defense to such acts in the legal definition of terrorism itself. In other words, should the definition of terrorism provide a just cause to use force which states groups and individuals could rely on as a defense to any charge of terrorism, the freedom fighter defense? The third area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should include the actions of armed forces and soldiers during an armed conflicts. Or whether members of the armed forces should be excluded from being prosecuted as terrorists if they breach domestic laws and international laws of war. In other words, should soldiers be given a blanket immunity from being prosecuted as terrorists? The fourth area of contention is whether the the definition of terrorism should include the use of particular methods of warfare such as the use of particular prohibited munitions which fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, or force displacement of civilian populations, or the use of bombing campaign which destroys civilian infrastructure and fails to test of proportionality, precaution military necessity, or a total siege leading to starvation, death of civilian people.
And the fifth area of contention is whether the definition of terrorism should be subject to that international agreed definition, if ever one is agreed, to avoid concerns that prosecutions are politically motivated. Of course, some activities described can be prosecuted as international crimes, like war crimes, or genocide, in domestic court or the international criminal court, that is, if the country has domestic terrorism laws covering particular activities in place, or the country has ratified the treaty to give jurisdiction to the international criminal court. You might be wondering why an international definition of terrorism is important. Let me give you six reasons as explained by some commentators. One, to ensure actions of terrorists don't go unpunished. Two, to deter future offending terrorist behavior including those who may think of traveling abroad to carry out terrorism and keep people safe over there. Three, to avoid delegitimization of liberation struggles through the threat or actual terrorist prosecution. Four, to avoid government and prosecutors being accused of double standards in applying the law on terrorism Five, to help police and their limited resources to identify and investigate terrorism. And six, to target those who need safeguarding and education from potentially being drawn into terrorism activity here or abroad. To conclude, in the absence of an agreed and universally accepted definition of terrorism, if one is possible, if or when you label someone, or some group, or some state a terrorist, or you fail to place that label of terrorism on someone, some group or some state, this may speak volumes, not just about the act in question, but when it comes to some conflicts and wars, about you and what you believe in and which side you are on.