From 2000 to 2015, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focused on terrorism related to Northern Ireland .
54-534: Between them, they provided a definition of terrorism that made it possible to establish a new and distinct set of police powers and procedures, beyond those related to ordinary crime, which could be applied in terrorist cases. In February 2009, the Liberal Democrats published a Freedom Bill designed to repeal many of these laws (as well as others such as the Identity Cards Act 2006 ) aimed at reversing
108-474: A consensus definition published by Schmid and A. J. Jongman in 1988, with a longer revised version published by Schmid in 2011, some years after he had written that "the price for consensus [had] led to a reduction of complexity". The Cambridge History of Terrorism (2021), however, states that Schmid's "consensus" resembles an intersection of definitions, rather than a bona fide consensus. The United Nations General Assembly condemned terrorist acts by using
162-695: A briefing paper for the Australian Parliament in 2002, Angus Martyn stated: The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination. Diaz-Paniagua (2008) has noted that, to "create an effective legal regime against terrorism, it would be necessary to formulate
216-526: A broad sense that was satisfactory for legal purposes. There was also some scepticism as to the necessity, desirability and feasibility of producing an agreed and workable general definition." Nonetheless, the same committee of the United Nations General Assembly which authored the 1997 Bombing Convention and the 1999 Financing Convention has been working on a proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism , given renewed impetus by
270-618: A comprehensive definition of that crime that, on the one hand, provides the strongest moral condemnation to terrorist activities while, on the other hand, has enough precision to permit the prosecution of criminal activities without condemning acts that should be deemed to be legitimate". Nonetheless, due to major divergences at the international level on the question of the legitimacy of the use of violence for political purposes, either by states or by self-determination and revolutionary groups, this has not yet been possible." In this sense, M. Cherif Bassiouni (1988) notes: to define 'terrorism' in
324-513: A concept, the more it lends itself to opportunistic appropriation. As scholar Bruce Hoffman (1998) has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes
378-670: A definition would only be necessary if the punishment of the relevant offences were made conditional on the existence of a specific 'terrorist' intent; but this would be counter-productive, inasmuch as it would result in unduly restricting their suppression. Following this approach, the international community adopted 12 sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states, between 1963 and 2005 (see below), relating to types of acts (such as aboard an aircraft , taking hostages , bombings , nuclear terrorism, etc.). Analyzing these treaties, Andrew Byrnes observed that: These conventions – all of which are described by
432-527: A first attempt at defining terrorism. Article 1.1 of the League of Nations ' 1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism defined "acts of terrorism" as "criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within
486-403: A largely impossible undertaking. That is why the search for and internationally agreed upon definition may well be a futile and unnecessary effort. Sami Zeidan, a diplomat and scholar, explained the political reasons underlying the current difficulties to define terrorism as follows (2004): There is no general consensus on the definition of terrorism. The difficulty of defining terrorism lies in
540-496: A political strategy defined as "asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime", and therefore ranges from "(1) intermittent actions by members of groups that are engaged in wider political struggles to (2) one segment in the modus operandi of durably organized specialists in coercion, including government-employed and government-backed specialists in coercion to (3)
594-471: A public statement. This meaning originated with Russian radicals in the 1870s. Sergey Nechayev , who founded the People's Reprisal (Народная расправа) in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist". German radicalist writer Johann Most helped popularize the modern sense of the word by dispensing "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s. According to Myra Williamson (2009): "The meaning of 'terrorism' has undergone
SECTION 10
#1733123238030648-424: A single, all-encompassing, comprehensive definition of terrorism—the international community has also adopted a "...'sectoral' approach aimed at identifying offences seen as belonging to the activities of terrorists and working out treaties in order to deal with specific categories thereof". The treaties that follow this approach focus on the wrongful nature of terrorist activities rather than on their intent : On
702-403: A transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term 'terrorism' is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or subnational entities against a state". Definitions include: Bruce Hoffman notes that terrorism
756-422: A way that is both all-inclusive and unambiguous is very difficult, if not impossible. One of the principle difficulties lies in the fundamental values at stake in the acceptance or rejection of terror-inspiring violence as means of accomplishing a given goal. The obvious and well known range of views on these issues are what makes an internationally accepted specific definition of what is loosely called 'terrorism,'
810-418: Is "ineluctably about power". Terrorism has been described as: Definitions of terrorism typically emphasize one or more of the following features: The following criteria of violence or threat of violence usually fall outside of the definition of terrorism: Scholar Ken Duncan argues the term terrorism has generally been used to describe violence by non-state actors rather than government violence since
864-663: Is characterized as terror perpetrated by governments, complementing the general understanding of terrorism. Revolutionary terror , also known as " Red Terror ", was often used by revolutionary governments to suppress counterrevolutionaries . The first example was the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution in 1794. Other notable examples include the Red Terror in Soviet Russia in 1918–1922, as well as simultaneous campaigns in
918-463: Is embedded in a person's or nation's philosophy. Thus, the determination of the 'right' definition of terrorism is subjective". While discussing the definitional and ethical difficulties of terrorism, philosopher Jenny Teichman argues that "it ought not to be impossible to find an agreed definition, and then ask whether one wants to condemn or applaud all or some of the things that fall under that description". Experts disagree on "whether terrorism
972-423: Is its capacity to stigmatize, delegitimize, denigrate, and dehumanize those at whom it is directed, including political opponents. The term is ideologically and politically loaded; pejorative; implies moral, social, and value judgment; and is "slippery and much-abused." In the absence of a definition of terrorism, the struggle over the representation of a violent act is a struggle over its legitimacy. The more confused
1026-515: Is of particular importance in the case of terrorism. The criminalization of terrorist acts expresses society's repugnance at them, invokes social censure and shame, and stigmatizes those who commit them. Moreover, by creating and reaffirming values, criminalization may serve, in the long run, as a deterrent to terrorism, as those values are internalized." Thus, international criminal law treaties that seek to prevent, condemn and punish terrorist activities, require precise definitions: The definition of
1080-450: Is wrong by definition or just wrong as a matter of fact; they disagree about whether terrorism should be defined in terms of its aims, or its methods, or both, or neither; they disagree about whether states can perpetrate terrorism; they even disagree about the importance or otherwise of terror for a definition of terrorism ". To elaborate an effective legal regime to prevent and punish international terrorism—rather than only working on
1134-535: The Reign of Terror , a revolutionary violence during the French Revolution , which also gave rise to the term terrorism . Before the late twentieth century, the term "terrorism" in the English language was often used interchangeably with "terror". The term "terrorism" frequently refers to acts by groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare , while "terror" refers to acts by governments. Charles Tilly defines "terror" as
SECTION 20
#17331232380301188-531: The September 11 attacks in 2001. The international community has worked on two comprehensive counter-terrorism treaties, the League of Nations ' 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which never entered into force, and the United Nations' proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism , which has not yet been finalized. In the late 1930s, the international community made
1242-631: The "cumulative loss" of civil liberties in Britain. In his comprehensive commentary on the anti-terrorism legislation, Professor Clive Walker of the University of Leeds comments: The Terrorism Act 2000 represents a worthwhile attempt to fulfil the role of a modern code against terrorism, though it fails to meet the desired standards in all respects. There are aspects where rights are probably breached, and its mechanisms to ensure democratic accountability and constitutionalism are even more deficient, as discussed in
1296-613: The 1970s, an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has reviewed the operation of the UK's principal anti-terrorism laws, reporting to the Home Secretary and to Parliament. Definition of terrorism There is no legal or scientific consensus on the definition of terrorism . Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism , and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition. Difficulties arise from
1350-531: The 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts , which applies in situations Article 1. Paragraph 4 "... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes...", contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant. In
1404-469: The 19th-century Anarchist Movement . Schmid (2004) summarised many sources when he wrote: "It is widely agreed that international terrorism can only be fought by international cooperation". If states do not agree on what constitutes terrorism, the chances of cooperation between countries is reduced; for example, agreement is needed so that extradition is possible. Ben Saul has noted (2008): "A combination of pragmatic and principled arguments supports
1458-613: The Galić judgement, the ICTY found that the term "terror" refers to an attack or targeting of civilians or civilian property not justified by military necessity, its only objective being spreading extreme fear among civilian population. It was declared a violation of the Laws or Customs of War (Article 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 ). The legal defense of Galić argued that
1512-897: The Hungarian Soviet Republic and in Finland . In China, Red Terror in 1966 and 1967 started the Cultural revolution . Counter-revolutionary terror is usually referred to as " White Terror ". Notable examples are the terror campaigns in France (1794–1795), in Russia (1917–20), in Hungary (1919–1921) and in Spain . Modern examples of counter-revolutionary terror include Operation Condor in South America. The Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for
1566-528: The Latin verb terrere , "to frighten". The French National Convention declared in September 1793 that "terror is the order of the day". The period 1793–94 is referred to as La Terreur ( Reign of Terror ). Maximilien Robespierre , a leader in the French Revolution proclaimed in 1794 that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible." The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced
1620-418: The United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics: (a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act – this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to
1674-475: The case for defining terrorism in international law". Reasons for why terrorism needs to be defined by the international community include the need to condemn violations to human rights ; to protect the state and its constitutional order, which protects rights; to differentiate public and private violence; to ensure international peace and security, and "control the operation of mandatory Security Council measures since 2001". Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, who coordinated
Terrorism Acts - Misplaced Pages Continue
1728-508: The criminal nature of the tactics used. Historically, the dispute on the meaning of terrorism arose since the laws of war were first codified in 1899. The Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture, and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants. More recently
1782-515: The dominant rationale for distinct, committed groups and networks of activists". According to Tilly, the term "terror" spans a wide range of human cruelties, from Stalin's use of executions to clandestine attacks by groups like the Basque separatists and the Irish Republican Army and even ethnic cleansing and genocide. State terrorism is a particular concept for a type of political terror that
1836-518: The fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged. A simple definition proposed to the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) by terrorism studies scholar Alex P. Schmid in 1992, based on the already internationally accepted definition of war crimes , as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes", was not accepted. Scholars have worked on creating various academic definitions, reaching
1890-557: The failure to achieve universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism, not least that it is such a "complex and multidimensional phenomenon". In addition, the term has been used broadly, to describe so many different incidents and events that scholar Louise Richardson has said that the term "has become so widely used in many contexts as to become almost meaningless". An analysis of 73 different definitions in 2004 came up with only five common elements, which excluded any reference to victims, fear/terror, motive, non-combatant targets or
1944-602: The following political description of terrorism in December 1994 (GA Res. 49/60): Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable , whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The term "terrorism" comes from French terrorisme , from Latin : terror , "great fear", "dread", related to
1998-766: The former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found Stanislav Galić , the Bosnian Serb commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), Radovan Karadžić , the President of Republika Srpska , and Ratko Mladić , Chief of Staff of VRS, guilty of terror as a crime against humanity , among other crimes, for their role in the Siege of Sarajevo during the Bosnian War , and sentenced them each to life imprisonment . In
2052-410: The homogeneous application of the treaty's obligations on judicial and police cooperation. This function is of particular importance in extradition treaties because, to grant an extradition, most legal systems require that the crime be punishable both in the requesting state and the requested state. Fourth, it helps states to enact domestic legislation to criminalize and punish the wrongful acts defined in
2106-411: The instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term "war on terrorism" is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on
2160-452: The interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives; (b) they all focused on actions by non-state actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism – the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and (c) they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address
2214-455: The international terrorist lists. Today, the United Nations views Palestinians as freedom fighters, struggling against the unlawful occupation of their land by Israel, and engaged in a long-established legitimate resistance, yet Israel regards them as terrorists [...] The repercussion of the current preponderance of the political over the legal value of terrorism is costly, leaving the war against terrorism selective, incomplete and ineffective. In
Terrorism Acts - Misplaced Pages Continue
2268-403: The meaning of the definition contained in article 1, the following: 1. Any willful act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to: Terror (politics) Terror (from French terreur , from Latin terror "great fear", terrere "to frighten" ) is a policy of political repression and violence intended to subdue political opposition. The term first appears in
2322-441: The negotiations of the proposed United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (proposed in 1996 and not yet achieved), noted in 2008 the need to provide a precise definition of terrorist activities in international law: "Criminal law has three purposes: to declare that a conduct is forbidden, to prevent it, and to express society's condemnation for the wrongful acts. The symbolic, normative role of criminalization
2376-502: The offence in criminal law treaty plays several roles. First and foremost, it has the symbolic, normative role of expressing society's condemnation of the forbidden acts. Second, it facilitates agreement. Since states tend to be reluctant to undertake stringent obligations in matters related to the exercise of their domestic jurisdiction, a precise definition of the crime, which restricts the scope of those obligations, makes agreement less costly. Third, it provides an inter-subjective basis for
2430-832: The person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters ) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc. The term has been depicted as carrying racist, xenophobic and ethnocentric connotations when used as an ethnic slur aimed at Arabs or Middle Easterners, or at someone of Arab or Greater Middle Eastern descent or when used by white supremacists. These difficulties led Pamala Griset (2003) to conclude that: "the meaning of terrorism
2484-563: The policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists". The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in 1798 as meaning "systematic use of terror as a policy". Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by the French government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of people by non-governmental political activists for political reasons, often as
2538-559: The principle of non-retroactivity. If the law is to admit the term, advance definition is essential on grounds of fairness, and it is not sufficient to leave definition to the unilateral interpretations of States. Legal definition could plausibly retrieve terrorism from the ideological quagmire, by severing an agreed legal meaning from the remainder of the elastic, political concept. Ultimately it must do so without criminalizing legitimate violent resistance to oppressive regimes – and becoming complicit in that oppression. There are many reasons for
2592-448: The problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes. Byrnes notes that "this act-specific approach to addressing problems of terrorism in binding international treaties has continued up until relatively recently. Although political denunciation of terrorism in all its forms had continued apace, there had been no successful attempt to define 'terrorism' as such in
2646-577: The risk it entails of taking positions. The political value of the term currently prevails over its legal one. Left to its political meaning, terrorism easily falls prey to change that suits the interests of particular states at particular times. The Taliban and Osama bin Laden were once called freedom fighters (mujahideen) and backed by the CIA when they were resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Now they are on top of
2700-434: The same vein, Jason Burke (2003), a British reporter who writes about radical Islamist activity, said: There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as "the use or threat of serious violence" to advance some kind of "cause". Some state clearly the kinds of group ("sub-national", "non-state") or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on
2754-591: The section on "Scrutiny" earlier in this chapter. It is also a sobering thought, proffered by the Home Affairs Committee, that the result is that "This country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy." (Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 (2001-02 HC 351) para.1). But at least that result initially flowed from a solemnly studied and carefully constructed legislative exercise. Since
SECTION 50
#17331232380302808-605: The treaty in conformity with their human rights' obligations. The principle of nullum crimen sine lege requires, in particular, that states define precisely which acts are prohibited before anyone can be prosecuted or punished for committing those same acts. Saul noted in this sense that, missing a generally agreed, all-encompassing, definition of the term: 'Terrorism' currently lacks the precision, objectivity and certainty demanded by legal discourse. Criminal law strives to avoid emotive terms to prevent prejudice to an accused, and shuns ambiguous or subjective terms as incompatible with
2862-433: The whole, for the less loaded term "Militancy". This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way. The political and emotional connotation of the term "terrorism" makes difficult its use in legal discourse. In this sense, Saul (2004) notes that: Despite the shifting and contested meaning of "terrorism" over time, the peculiar semantic power of the term, beyond its literal signification,
2916-427: The whole, therefore, the 'sectoral' conventions confirm the assumption that some offences can be considered in themselves as offences of international concern, irrespective of any 'terrorist' intent or purpose. Indeed, the principal merit of the 'sectoral approach' is that it avoids the need to define 'terrorism' of 'terrorist acts' ... So long as the 'sectoral' approach is followed, there is no need to define terrorism;
#29970