Something interesting I have noted of late on ATS is a propensity of members to raise questions regarding the nature of terrorism without a definition of “terrorism”. For instance, members will often post a thread that presents questions such as “Do you believe in terrorism” or a thread claiming that an individual or group in society are “terrorists” or discussing issues around the paradoxical nature of the “war on terror”. Yet in all of these threads it is assumed that a clear definition of the word “terrorism” exits and this is not the case and this has an impact on the flow of the thread. In this thread I want to highlight the problems associated with blindly using the word “terrorism” without taking into account the complexity of its very definition.

Terrorism, like all definitions is subjective and a truly universal definition of terrorism remains elusive despite attempts from the international community to establish such a definition. Problems in establishing this universal definition arise because it is apparent that the use of the phrase “terrorism” is used as a political tool and this over-rides the political will to establish an internationally agreed definition. The current status-quo provides grate flexibility on what constitutes terrorism and what individuals are terrorists. This current system allows the state to change its definition without breaching international law to a definition that suits the current national security interests of the state. For example 10 years ago the threat form cyber terrorism was minimal, however today it is seen as a tier one national security priority for the UK Government and as such the definition of “terrorism” under UK law can be changed to cover this new emerging threat.

Currently definitions of terrorism are specific to the state; each state has an alternative definition of terrorism. As such what constitutes “terrorism” and a “terrorist” in the UK will be different to what constitutes “terrorism” and “terrorist” under American law. It is true however that there are some general themes that appear in most western systems of justice concerning terrorism although to say that every state has a similar definition of terrorism would be naive and inaccurate. Take for instance the courts of India where terrorism has been effectively defined as war crimes committed during times of peace. It is obvious that this definition is problematic because acts we may perceive to be acts of “terrorism” may not constitute a war crime. In the UK for example under the terrorism act 2006 it is prohibited for any person to be seen to glorify terrorism and any persons prosecuted for such crimes would be regarded as a terrorist, under Indian law this would not constitute as a terrorist crime under their system of jurisprudence and this ruling.

As previously stated a universal definition of terrorism remains elusive and there have been attempts. This was first attempted at a international level by the League of Nations in 1937, however the definition never came into force. More recently since 2000 the international community through the UN have attempted to create a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, this however is currently still on the table due in part to member states differences on how to define terrorism. Despite the absence of this comprehensive convention and the still elusive universal definition of terrorism, there are legislative points of international law that currently cover terrorism. For instance the convention outlawing the unlawful seizure of aircraft or conventions covering the finance of terrorist organisations and Nuclear terrorism are all examples of legislation under international law regarding terrorism.

A definition of terrorism raises many questions that provoke international disagreements. One such example would be the difference between a “liberation movement” and a “terrorist organisation”. For example recent events in Libya where a nationalist liberation movement sought to over through the regime of Gaddafi, yet in the Philippines the “Communist party of the Philippines (CPP)” has also got aims to over through the Government of the Philippines to establish a communist state. Although these two examples are both different both are two groups who seek to over through a government they disagree with in favour of their own ideology. One group, in Libya is seen as a liberation movement, yet the other in the Philippines is seen as a terrorist organisation by both the EU and USA for no other reason than that they disagree with the communist agenda of the CPP and have a sheared agenda with the liberation movement in Libya. All of this in spite of the fact that both the CPP and the Libyan movement both condoned the use of violence to achieve their aims and the fact that elements within the Libyan movement were designated as being terrorists. This is a perfect example of individual states using there flexible approach as to what constitutes terrorism to their advantage.

There is a similar conflict on what the difference is between a state-sponsor of terrorism and a act of state terrorism. Does an act of state terrorism constitute an act of war, does an act of terrorism by a third party with a state supporter still constitute an act of war. What about the emergence of eco-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, “the lone wolf terrorist” or the growing threat of the possibility of so called “Mega-terrorism”, how are these to be defined.

With in academic literature there are many who have made attempts at defining terrorism however it is clear that the literature remains divided. In academia the quest for definitions is a never ending task and terrorism is no exception, many of these have similar themes yet there are differences amongst the scholars and it is acknowledged that no absolute definition exists.

However it is possible even without the definition to argue that terrorism that terrorism is a tactic, used by a group to further their agenda through aggressive means. However this is to vague to ever count as any kind of definition rather it is merely a component of any definition. The majority of the definitions would support this idea that terrorism is a tactic, most commonly associated with violence to further an agenda held by the group or individual responsible for the “act of terrorism”.

Although there are some very good definitions of terrorism to be found both in academia and from the state, it should always be remembered when writing about terrorism that due to the ambiguous nature of the word and the phenomenon of terrorism it is vital to bare this in mind.

I thought I would give this thread a bump to see if it would get any more interest second time round.