Issues With Terrorism at International Level

¶ … International Law on Terrorism The purpose of this essay is to highlight and discuss pertinent issues regarding international law and its lack of ability to administer without shortcomings. Specifically, the impact of terrorism will be discussed to highlight the holes in international law and how it ultimately fails to fully practice in a just and fair manner. To support this argument, the definition of terrorism will be discussed.

The difficulty in assigning a proper quality to this word stands at the root of many of the legal problems associated with its principles. This essay will then discuss the United Nations and its role in international law. Finally the issues of global culture and evolution will be highlighted to demonstrate the impossibility of a global law that can justly decide on what is and what is not terrorism. The Definition of Terrorism The laws is very dependent upon definitions and the court is essentially built upon them as well.

Any argument that is considered fair and balanced should consider a shared definition on key terms and words. Many legal arguments are simply arguments about the definition of words. What defines terrorism? This is a valid yet vague and difficult question to answer because the question appears to be so broad and sweeping. Terrorism is not universally defined in any real or practical aspect. In essence, the word has no legal meaning and is cause of many debates throughout the world (Duursma, 2008).

The idea of self-determination seems directly involved with defining the word terrorism. Using the example of the American Revolution, the freedom fighters or patriots known as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, would all have been considered terrorist leaders by today's standards taken from the point-of-view from the English monarchy. The Boston Tea Party itself was a terrorist act, used to scare and cause injury to British interests in the colonies.

As a result of the subjective nature of the word terrorism, the United Nations commented on this problem as it related to international law, and the ability to enforce against it. The UN argued that rights of people to self-determine their own fate could not be consider terrorism in any way shape or form, (Duursma). This problem is reflective of the vague nature of the word terrorism as there is actually no enforcing consensus on what the word actually means.

Arguing for or against this word in court of law is problematic at the global level due to the lack of agreement on the subjective nature of the word. Others have attempted to comment on the defining qualities of the word. Guillaume (2004) suggested that three conditions would have to be met in order to qualify someone as a terrorist. The first suggested that perpetration of certain activities are of a violent nature designed to cause death and destruction.

The second condition is that these activities are conspired in manner that reflects an organizing capability. This would mean that the activities were not off the cuff improvised action, but rather they were planned and manipulated with effort and discipline. The third qualification of a terrorist would that that person has a direct and clear objective of creating fear and terror within a specific group or environment. The aforementioned definition, at face value, appears universally appealing to base a legal definition of the word.

The reluctance of any organization or institution that claims to represent total international legal capabilities to make an official definition of the term demonstrates the problem with ambiguous nature of the word. The subjective nature of fear plays a large role in the trouble with international agreement on how to treat the word. What fears one person may not fear another person or to a lesser or greater degree. Fear is an emotion that is not tangible so addressing it in a practical manner is difficult.

Fear and terror are merely ideas or ways of describing events and cannot be materially represented on their own. Reason and wisdom need to apply in addressing the problems related to terrorism. The Questionable Strength of International Law The historic prominence of international law can be based in only recent times due to the lack of communication within the global context. The United Nations has been the first long standing international legal organization known in recent history.

This organization is key to both enforcing and creating international law at many levels. Much of what is sanctioned by the UN appears to have been subjected to debate and rigorous discussion, and temperance being applied throughout all stages. The UN does not hold much power however when examining the organization in a critical manner.

The overall increase in warfare and civilian destruction that has occurred since the UN's inception in the middle of the 20th century suggests that it may actually have an impact on increasing terrorism, war and destruction. The UN has been involved in authorizing many wars and punishing strikes and embargos throughout the past 60 years, and poses a threat to those countries who do not qualify to join the organization itself. The UN does not hold together its treaties very effectively in many cases.

The Korean War saw a somewhat unified effort in organizing against a terroristic element, however the majority of the fight was conducted by U.S. troops. Terrorism in this case does not apply, in these conventional disagreements. In many ways the notion is still very much the same, however, the language is not consistent with the modern day ideas behind the word. The UN's real challenge has only begun recently due to the impact of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, which changed much of the global landscape, legal and otherwise.

The New Global Landscape and Its Impact on International Law and Terrorism The attacks of 9-11 in America changed many things about the world and ushered in many new ideas in terms of warfare and defense. There is a new global landscape that has arisen from this attack that uses technology to its fullest extent. The globe appears to be broken and fractured while sects of all kinds, with their own self-determination, seek to find their own freedom and ways of living without having traditional institutions rule over their sovereignty.

These ideas are dangerous and threaten the imperial status quo that largely exists in today's world. The terrorist attacks that occurred on 9-11 were blamed on a group of people not associated with any real nation, but all originating from a very few including Saudi Arabia. The self-defense response was not aimed at Saudi Arabia because the nation had not direct connection other than the fact that most of the hijackers blamed for the attack were indeed from Saudi Arabia. Instead, Afghanistan was attacked as a self-defense response.

International law cannot really apply because nations weren't necessarily represented on both sides of the conflict. This asymmetrical unbalance has no real place in traditional international courts and hearings despite the UN resolution okaying the U.S.'s coalition response. Byers (2002) suggested that by international standards military responses to perceived terrorist attacks will violate the integrity of a State that may not be responsible for the attack itself. This was the case in both the Afghanistan and Iraq nations being attacked in the aftermath of the attacks.

The lack of legal enforcement over the illegality of both sides of the conflict further put the UN's ability to manage world problems with any.