Towards a Comprehensive Definition of Terrorism

    The definition of terrorism must encompass the acts of all perpetrators, irrespective of power, location or circumstance. The definition must be absolute, with no exemptions for state actors or “freedom fighters.” It must cover acts that are carried out by persons under occupation or totalitarian rule. The definition must cover all acts along the spectrum of power, including those involving the powerful against the weak, as well as the weak against the powerful. The failure of the international community to have a universal definition undermines the fight against terrorism. We must establish a definition of terrorism that covers all acts, whether against individuals or property, and stop placing different values on victims or giving priority to the acts of certain parties. The definition should be based on Article 2 of the Draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism, with the explicit inclusion of state action.¹

The dynamics of power should never justify the terroristic acts of any individual, group, or state. Yet the current application of the term terrorism is relegated almost exclusively to non-state actors.² As Noam Chomsky stated, “[t]erroristic acts by the Emperor and his clients [i.e., states] are termed ‘retaliation’ or perhaps ‘legitimate preemptive strikes to avert terrorism,’ quite independently of the facts….” By omitting the terroristic acts of states from legal instruments that fight terrorism, the international community undermines its campaign to eliminate terrorism. A universal standard must be applied to successfully, and legitimately, combat terrorism. A definition of terrorism would be well served to include the spirit of Chomsky’s article, and treat the acts of the state the same as those of individuals or groups.³ This is not to say that the targeting of civilians by the powerless should ever be condoned. It is to say that the very same acts committed by states should be held to the very same standard: as an act of terrorism.

The definition should not exempt so-called “freedom fighters.” Developing countries have urged an exception when “individuals or groups struggling for their right of self-determination” commit the acts.⁴ Yet as the customary international legal definition of terrorism has evolved, the “freedom fighter” exception has rightfully been excluded.⁵ The definition of terrorism must prohibit all conduct that targets civilians, irrespective of the purported righteousness of one's cause, or the conditions to which the population that the terrorist claims to be acting on behalf is subjected. The remedy for ending a people’s suffering under totalitarian rule or occupation is not the legitimization of certain terroristic acts. The international community can address such conditions, as well as the root causes of terrorism, without permitting the very act of terrorism.

The definition should apply to domestic and international terrorism alike. Irrespective of the nature of a terroristic act, conflicts rarely remain confined to one country’s borders. Such acts increasingly affect the whole world. The international community has a vested interest in combating all terrorism, and should include both domestic and international terrorism in its definition.

Terrorism should include the targeting of persons and property, so long as the acts are intended to “intimidate or coerce.”⁶ The Draft convention rightfully includes attacks to public or private property. Some believe that there are fundamental differences between attacks on persons and attacks on property. Yet both kinds of attacks can cause massive suffering of civilians. Symbolic attacks on girls’ schools, or the destruction of public utilities can be just as devastating as suicide attacks. The definition of terrorism should focus on the motivations of the attacks, and whether they are intended to intimidate, coerce, or compel a population, state or organization’s actions.

The definition of terrorism must “be devoid of political subjectivity and bias.”⁷ The UN General Assembly, and indeed the international community, will be unable to effectively combat terrorism if all conduct is not held to the same standard. “[S]ome acts must be absolutely forbidden, whatever their alleged goal.”⁸ The definition of terrorism should reflect this principle so as to advance the pursuit of legitimacy and maximum prevention of harm. The targeting of civilians for religious, political, or ideological goals, by individuals, groups or states, should never be permitted. The UN General Assembly’s definition of terrorism should be based on Article 2 of the Draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism, so long as the action of states is included. This definition will ensure that terroristic conduct by all parties is universally condemned, and further the international community’s goal of protecting all civilians from violence. 

1 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996. www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/57/a5737.pdf. pg. 6.

2 Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World. Noam Chomsky. 

3 Id. 

4 Terrorism as an International Crime. Antonio Cassese. 

5 Id. 

6 Pirates and Emperors.

7 A Policy-Oriented Inquiry of International Terrorism. M. Cherif Bassiouni.

8 Terror/Torture. Karima Bennoune.