International Criminal Justice. In our ICJ module we are required to do a presentation in each seminar on the week's topic area. Our presentation would usually consist of one of: - literature review - case review - current issues For our final seminar we had to give a presentation on one of the following topics: - aggression - terrorism - torture My presentation was on terrorism and I mainly looked at the literature on this area, with the odd case and current issues included. My primary focus was on the definition of terrorism as I couldn't find a universally accepted definition and looked at the problems this caused. The battle against terrorism is difficult enough, hampered by the absence of a definition. I examine the reasons as to why there isn't a definition, the difficulties in establishing one, the effect of establishing one, and therefore answering the question whether a definition of terrorism is actually needed.

1. International Criminal Justice
Terrorism in International Law:
The struggle to define terrorism is just as hard as the
struggle against terrorism…but is a definition really
needed?

2. Defining terrorism in international law
• No agreed definition of terrorism in
international law.
• International law oblige states to prevent and
repress terrorism but it fails authoritatively to
define the concept of terrorism itself.

3. The duty to prevent and repress terrorism
• This duty is found in a patchwork of 15 subject-specific
multilateral conventions or protocols, seven regional treaties,
and a range of UN Security Council and General Assembly
resolutions.
• These proscribe specific acts of terrorism and impose duties
on states to criminalize and investigate those acts, to
prosecute or extradite suspected perpetrators, and to freeze
the assets of suspected terrorists.
• States implementing these obligations must do so in full
compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), where
it applies, international human rights law (IHRL), and
international refugee law (IRL).
• However, none of the multilateral or regional instruments has
yielded a single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.

4. Difficulties in finding a universal definition
of terrorism
• Negotiations for a Draft Comprehensive Convention on
Terrorism had reached a dead end.
• Three lasting points of disagreement can be summarized as
follows:
- whether the Draft Convention should adopt an armed conflict
or law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism;
- whether a definition of terrorism should include or exclude
„state terrorism‟, and whether it should include or exclude the
acts of state armed forces; and
- whether armed resistance to an occupying regime or to
colonial or alien domination should be included or excluded
from the Draft Convention‟s definition of terrorism.

5. Approaches to a definition of terrorism
• Geoffrey Levitt dates „the first organized international legal
attempt to grapple with the problem of defining terrorism‟ to
the International Conferences for the Unification of Penal
Law in the 1920‟s and 1930‟s.
• In 1988, Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman, conducted a
study (Political Terrorism) and identified 109 different
definitions of terrorism.
• Despite efforts and greater focus following 9/11, attempts to
develop a universally accepted definition have failed.
• Levitt likened the search for a legal definition of terrorism to
„the search for the holy grail‟
(Ben Golder and George Williams, What is Terrorism? Problems of Legal
Definition)

6. Approaches continued…
• 1937 – League of Nations‟ Convention for the
Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. Didn‟t
get enough support to be put into practice.
• Post 1963 – many decisions and conventions accepted
with the UN. BUT none of these contain a definition on
terrorism.
• European Convention on the Suppression of
terrorism 1977 and International Convention for
the Suppression for the Financing of Terrorism
1999 both failed to define terrorism.

7. Regional Treaties
• In Ben Saul‟s book, „Defining Terrorism in
International Law‟, there is reference to regional treaties
and some of them provide general definitions on terrorism.
He claims that some of these are so wide as to be
indistinguishable from other forms of political violence.
(p.190)
• The International Court of Justice also refers to this
distinctness. In the Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case
(ICJ Reports, 1950), it was stated that „these treaties
reflect so much uncertainty and contradiction, so
much constant and uniform usage, accepted as law‟.
• In another ICJ case, this time concerning fisheries (Anglo-
Norwegian Fisheries case, ICJ Reports, 1951), the Court
observed on the same subject „too much importance
needs to be attached to a few uncertainties or
contradictions.‟

8. Security Council Resolution 1373
• The UN General Assembly produced resolutions
concerning international terrorism, the most
important being Resolution 1373, which
established the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
Resolution 1373 permits every member state to
publish the concept of terrorism under its
marital system. Eris Rosand believes that this
situation cannot end the definition problem
because every state will express terrorism
divergently in its legal order.
(Eric Rosand: Security council resolution 1373, the counter-
terrorism committee, and the fight against terrorism).

9. Resolution 1566
• A definition is supplied:
“Recalls that criminal acts including against civilians,
committed with the intent to cause death or seriously
bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to
provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group
persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organisation to
do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute
offences within the scope of and as defined in the
international conventions and protocols relating to
terrorism , are under no circumstances justifiable by
considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological,
racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls
upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to
ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent
with their grave nature.”

10. However…
• According to Schmid, Resolution 1566 is non-
binding, lacking legal authority in international
law.
• Saul in p.247 of his book claims that the Council
adopted this resolution in which the definition of
terrorism has been generically given, but not
expressly framed as a definition.

11. Reasons for elusiveness on terrorism
(1) the concept of “terrorism”
According to some scholars the inability to define terrorism in
international law can be acceptable because as Schmid points
out „terrorism is a „contested concept‟ and political,
legal, social science and popular notions of it are often
diverging‟
Begorre-Bret notes, over the years: „the member states did
not manage to reach any consensus concerning the
definition of terrorism‟ because every state has different
backgrounds and regimes. However, if one state defines
terrorism broadly and the other has a narrow one, a constant
consensual policy will be a difficult goal.

12. Begorre-Bret also points out the subjective concept
of terrorism; that it is not feasible to define terrorism
since it is impossible to discern objectively between
legitimate force and illegitimate violence, between “
the hero” and “the barbarian”, and between “the
warrior” and “the murderer”. There is no objective
explanation of terrorism but only several partial and
ideological characterisations of the violence of the foe.
The defining of terrorism is embedded in a persons or
nation‟s philosophy. Therefore, it should be accepted
the determination to what constitutes terrorism is
subjective.

13. Reasons for elusiveness on terrorism cont…
(2) interest of states
When the states define terrorism they focus on their
own priorities in reference to their national interest;
therefore, the definition should be disinterested. As
Ganor remarks: „if all the enlightened countries
do not change their priorities, and do not
disenable their political and economic
interest, it will not be feasible to wage an
effective war against terrorism‟.
In this regard, Begorre-Bret makes an important
point, that the states and criminal organisations
themselves create the disputes and confusion about
definition because they do not wish to limit their
reasons to the use of force.

14. (4) reluctance to define terrorism
International organisations are aware of the
definition issue, yet they hesitate to create
universally accepted definition. They condemn
terrorism but they do not define. As Walter
(2004; cited in Golder and Williams 2004, p.271)
accepts, it is clearly required to create a consistent
legal definition of terrorism.

15. (5) CULTURAL RELATIVISM!!!!
Because of this, the definition of terrorism shows
differences from community to community. It has also
been defined differently by politicians, security experts and
journalists.
Begorre-Bret remarks: „Failure is in their interest
because it strengthens ethical and juridical
relativism‟
Moreover, as Ganor claims, in the absence of an objective
and authoritative description, which is acknowledged by
all nations, fighting against terrorism will suffer
from cultural relativism. The problem arises from the
fact that we are seeking a firm definition of untenable
terms. As Ganor claims, there is a tendency to believe that
an objective and universally recognized definition of
terrorism can never be achieved because this term is a
variable. For instance, „one man‟s terrorist is another
man‟s freedom fighter‟

16. Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom
Fighter? (Boaz Ganor, ICT Executive Director)
• Terrorism or Revolutionary Violence?
• Terrorism or National Liberation?
• Targeting “the innocent”?
• Guerrilla Warfare vs. Terrorism

17. No definition, no effect
• Without a definition of terrorism, it is impossible to formulate or enforce
international agreements against terrorism. A conspicuous example of the
need to define terrorism concerns the extradition of terrorists. Although
many countries have signed bilateral and multilateral agreements
concerning a variety of crimes, extradition for political offenses is often
explicitly excluded, and the background of terrorism is always political. This
loophole allows many countries to shirk their obligation to extradite
individuals wanted for terrorist activities. It isn‟t only countries like Italy
and France that have refrained from extraditing terrorists, adducing
political motives. In the U.S. too, in June 1988, a Brooklyn judge rejected
the plea of a federal prosecutor requesting the extradition of Abed El Atta
(an American citizen suspected of participating in an attack against a bus in
the West Bank in April 1986, in which four people were killed). The judge
stated that this attack was a “political act,” part of the uprising in the
occupied territories, and instrumental in the attainment of the PLO‟s
“political aims.” “In the West Bank, today‟s rebels could be tomorrow‟s
rulers.” According to the judge, this is a “political charge,” excluded from
the category of crimes included in the extradition treaty between Israel and
the United States.

18. Is the threat of execution an effective
strategy in preventing terrorist attacks?
• This view is purely a myth.
• The prospect of execution is unlikely to act as a deterrent to people
prepared to kill and injure for the sake of a political or other
ideology.
• Some officials responsible for counter-terrorism have repeatedly
pointed out that those who are executed can be perceived as martyrs
whose memory becomes a rallying point for their ideology or
organizations.
• Armed opposition groups have also pointed to the use of the death
penalty as a justification for reprisals, thereby continuing the cycle
of violence.
• If this is the case then would an agreed international agreement on a
definition for terrorism make any difference? It would make
international agreements easier to enforce but I don‟t think it will
prevent terrorist attacks.
• Counter-terrorism – is it effective or does International Human
Rights and Humanitarian law need to be violated to combat
terrorism? Would this not lead to further reprisals?

19. Summary of definition
• Based on the international community‟s identification of the underlying
wrongfulness of international terrorism, terrorism can be deductively
defined as:
(1) any serious, violent, criminal act intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury, or to endanger life, including acts against property;
(2) where committed outside of an armed conflict;
(3) for political, ideological, religious, or ethnic purpose; and
(4) where intended to create extreme fear in a person, group, or the general
public, and:
(a) seriously intimidate a population or part of a population, or
(b) unduly compel a government or an international organization to
do or to abstain from doing any act.
(5) Advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action which is not intended to
cause death, seriously bodily harm, or serious risk to public health or safety
does not constitute a terrorist act.
(Elizabeth Bates - Terrorism and International Law: Accountability,
Remedies, and Reform)

20. Conclusion
• Defining terrorism is sometimes just as difficult
as combating terrorism.
• A universally accepted definition is needed for
more effective international operation.
• BUT the effect can only be so much…
• Then again, at least the international community
are doing something and the sooner a definition
can be brought in the better.
• A definition is needed otherwise we don‟t know
what exactly we are fighting against.