Political disagreements in defining terrorism across nations and organizations

Terrorism

The term "terrorism" is profoundly political, as can be seen by the numerous definitions of terrorism and the lack of a globally-agreed description. The myriad definitions show nations struggling to define "terrorism" in self-serving ways. Efforts to clarify and unify those definitions vary from legalistic to nearly bombastic. After listing many definitions from different nations and from within the United States, itself, this paper examines a legalistic attempt to lay the groundwork for a universal definition, then a more cutting attempt to dispel the self-serving political "fog" surrounding these definitions. The common thread in both approaches is the appeal to diplomatically weigh competing national interests in order to form a workable worldwide definition of "terrorism

Definitions of Terrorism

a. UN General Assembly Resolution 54/109 (1999)

"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."[footnoteRef:1] The UN Member States still have no universal definition of terrorism, which is a significant obstacle to worldwide anti-terrorism efforts.[footnoteRef:2] [1: (United Nations General Assembly, 2010).] [2: (Tiefenbrun, 2003, pp. 382-3).]

b. Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism (1998)

"Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize national resources."[footnoteRef:3] [3: (Arab Convention on Terrorism, 2009).]

c. UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004)

"[C]riminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."[footnoteRef:4] [4: (United Nations Security Council, 2004).]

d. The European Union (2002)

Set forth in Art.1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002). This lists certain serious criminal offences against persons/property which: "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization."[footnoteRef:5] [5: (The Council of the European Union, 2002, p. L164/4).]

e. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act (2000)

Section 1(1): "Terrorism means the use or threat of action where the action falls within subsection (2) (i.e. violence, serious damage, endangering life, etc.) and (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."[footnoteRef:6] In addition, acts of terrorism are further described in Section 1(2): Acts involving serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, acts that endanger a person=s life, other than that of the person committing the action; acts that create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or acts designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system."[footnoteRef:7] [6: (The National Archives, 2000).] [7: (Ibid.)]

f. France -- Criminal Code, Article 421-1 and -2

Characterizing terrorism as a crime against humanity, France lists serious criminal acts which it would also consider terrorism: "Acts are terrorist acts when they are intentionally committed by an individual entity or by a collective entity in order to seriously disturb law and order by intimidation or by terror."[footnoteRef:8] The Criminal Code also lists specific terrorist acts in 421-1: "Attempted murder, assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking on airplanes, ships, all means of transport, theft, extortion, destructions, and crimes committed during group combat, the production or ownership of weapons of destruction and explosives including the production, sale, import and export of explosives, the acquisition, ownership, transport of illegal explosive substances, the production, ownership, storage, or acquisition of biological or chemical weapons, and money laundering."[footnoteRef:9] Finally, the Criminal Code adds environmental terrorist acts in Article 421-2: "Placing in the air, on the ground, under the ground and in the water (including territorial water) any substance that would put the health of man and animals or the environment in danger."[footnoteRef:10] [8: (Tiefenbrun, 2003, pp. 375-376).] [9: (Ibid.)] [10: (Ibid.)]

g. Canada -- Anti-Terrorism Act §83

The Anti-Terrorism Act §83.01(1)(a) defines "terrorist activity":

"(a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:

(i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,

(ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,

(iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,

(iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,

(v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.4) or (3.6) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980,

(vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,

(vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

(viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

(ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and (x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999."[footnoteRef:11] [11: (Department of Justice Canada, 2008).]

j. U.S. Army Manual

"Terrorism, for the purposes of this training circular, is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies ... [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals."[footnoteRef:14] [14: (U.S. Army, 2001).]

k. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms

"Terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."[footnoteRef:15] [15: (U.S. Department of Defense, 2010).]

l. U.S. State Department

"[Terrorism is] premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."[footnoteRef:16] [16: (U.S. Department of State, 2000).]

m. Federal Bureau of Investigation -- 28 C.F.R. §0.85

"[Terrorism is] [t]he unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[footnoteRef:17] [17: (The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2005).]

3. Two Approaches to the Complexity of Terrorism Definitions

As nations struggle to define terrorism in order to target and combat it, the conflicting viewpoints and interests become obvious in the sheer number of their definitions, all focusing on a single word: terrorism. Even within the United States, separate governmental departments rely on separate definitions. In the face of these burgeoning and changing definitions, scholars have attempted to find a common ground from which we might globally define terrorism. While the search for common ground is still extremely difficult, some scholars have made significant inroads.

Susan Tiefenbrun, a lawyer and Director of "The Center for Global Legal Studies," uses a formal, legalistic approach called the "Semiotic Approach." According to Teifenbrun, Semiotics is the "science of signs" which looks for "hidden meanings, connotations and denotations" in an effort to unify apparently disparate definitions.[footnoteRef:18] Her first step in this approach is a return to a legal basic: "Black's Law Dictionary." This widely-used legal staple defines "Terrorism" as "The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, esp. As a means of affecting political conduct."[footnoteRef:19] From that very simple definition, Tiefenbrun then examined many definitions of terrorism and defined five fundamental elements of terrorism: [18: (Tiefenbrun, 2003, p. 359).] [19: (Ibid., p. 361)]

a. "The perpetration of violence by whatever means;

b. The targeting of innocent civilians;

c. With the intent to cause violence or with wanton disregard for its consequences;

d. For the purpose of causing fear, coercing or intimidating an enemy;

e. In order to achieve some political, military, ethnic, ideological, or religious goal."[footnoteRef:20] [20: (Ibid., p. 362).]

Using Tiefenbrun's approach, we can examine each element against the backdrop of multiple definitions. Examining the first element, Teifenbrun found that while "violence" is not specifically mentioned in some definitions, it is certainly at least an implied element of all. Tiefenbrun also explores the meaning of violence, concluding that it is not confined to physical acts or injuries; rather, "Violence has many forms and degrees of severity. However, an act is violent only if it causes harm to persons and things. Violence in any form can inspire terror in its victims and in those indirectly affected by the violence."[footnoteRef:21] The second element, the targeting of "innocent civilians," is more problematic in an attempt to reach a global definition: who is an innocent civilian? How many must be killed to constitute terrorism? Does war reduce the killing of innocent victims to mere collateral damage? As Tiefenbrun states, unanswered questions such as these and others militate against a global definition of terrorism.[footnoteRef:22] The third element's "wanton disregard" is easier to grasp, according to Tiefenbrun, because criminal courts have long-defined the required mental state for criminal activity. Tiefenbrun's explanation seems sparse and inadequate in this regard, as she makes no reference to a broad-based agreement on the element of "wanton disregard" across global legal systems. Tiefenbrun states that the fourth element's use of "fear" is problematic because it is a psychological condition rather than a legal element; meanwhile, "coercion" and "intimidation" have already been defined by courts. Again, Tiefenbrun's explanation seems inadequate, as she fails to show global unity about the meanings of "coercion" and intimidation. According to Teifenbrun, the fifth element's, "political, ethnic, ideological, or religious" goals are common implied elements of definitions but the addition of "military goal" creates difficulty because its inclusion in a global definition would require people in war to avoid using tactics normally used in war, even a civil war of "liberation," but condemned in peacetime as "terrorism."[footnoteRef:23] Examining the conflicting interests and paradoxes of terrorism's definitions, Tiefenbrun concludes that the five defined elements are legitimate and that a global definition is difficult but not impossible. She asserts that despite competing interests, nations can weigh the relative importance of their competing interests, much as judges do when reaching a decision.[footnoteRef:24] Though Tiefenbrun seems to take the universality of some definition elements for granted, her appeal to weigh interests is solidly based. [21: (Ibid., p. 364).] [22: (Ibid.)] [23: (Ibid.)] [24: (Ibid., p 401)]

Another approach to developing a unified definition of terrorism is espoused by Pierre Tristam, a journalist who is both a native of Beirut, Lebanon and a naturalized U.S. citizen, educated in American schools. Tristam contends that defining terrorism is "contentious" only from those who wish to hide from the definition's implications.[footnoteRef:25] Quoting Robert Fisk, a fellow journalist, Tristam maintains that "terrorism" no longer means terrorism: "It is not a definition. It is a political contrivance. 'Terrorists' are those who use violence against the side that is using the word."[footnoteRef:26] Tristam pointedly highlights American acts that could be construed as "terrorism" by the victims: "The Marines' massacre of civilians at Haditha in Iraq, the American military's deliberate bombing of civilian targets in Vietnam, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (neither of which had military value), the British and American razing of European cities in World War II."[footnoteRef:27] Referring to these acts as "State terror," Tristam argues that Western apologists, in particular, ease our consciences about those acts by saying that there are no "innocent civilians" in "total war."[footnoteRef:28] Attacking that tendency, Tristam demands an honest self-assessment from each nation regarding the "terrorist" methods it employs and excuses, then he urges all nations -- particularly Western nations - to shed the "political contrivance" in defining terrorism, acknowledge our own culpability and arrive at this simple definition: "Violent acts directed primarily at civilian targets, or that produce primarily civilian casualties, are acts of terrorism. So are violent acts directed at any imprisoned individual, soldiers or guerillas included - especially those held illegally, without charge, which makes Guantanamo's detainees hostages, not prisoners."[footnoteRef:29] Tristam's biting indictment of competing nations' supposed cognitive difficulties with defining "terrorism" is a refreshing, albeit edgy, approach that does seem to dispel considerable political fog. [25: (Tristam, 2007, pp. 1-2).] [26: (Ibid.)] [27: (Ibid.)] [28: (Ibid.)] [29: (Ibid.)]

4. Conclusion

Reviewing the many definitions of "terrorism" is an abject lesson in patience. The definitions become increasingly complex as nations struggle to define "terrorism" in ways that pinpoint it without underscoring their own culpability. Tiefenbrun's understandably legalistic approach to deciphering these definitions manages to deduce five common aspects: the perpetration of violence by whatever means; the targeting of innocent civilians; with the intent to cause violence or with wanton disregard for its consequences; for the purpose of causing fear, coercing or intimidating an enemy; in order to achieve some political, military, ethnic, ideological, or religious goal. Acknowledging the problematic inclusion of some aspects, Tiefenbrun nevertheless maintains that a meaningful consensus definition is possible if nations' competing interests are judiciously weighed. Tristam seems to espouse the same approach but with a more stinging, impatient rebuke, particularly of Western acts that could be defined as "terrorism."

In sum, Tiefenbrun and Tristam both argue for a balance of competing interests. Tiefenbrun's approach is the more formal, legalistic Semiotic approach to the elements of a workable definition. Meanwhile, Tristam's approach is confrontational, dismissing the supposed "difficulty" of reaching common ground and attributing that difficulty to sheer self-interest. Using either approach, the path to a global definition appears to lie along a realistic balance of competing interests.