Terrorism Justified? When Looking at the Principles

¶ … Terrorism Justified?

When looking at the principles of war theory, the moral distinctions made between state-sponsored warfare and terrorism by stateless nations may not always be justified. The examiner must consider both the jus ad bellum, or justification for going to war, and the jus in bello, or how the war is prosecuted. Some ethicists state that acts of war can only be justified when committed by one nation against another, and that groups within states cannot have that status. Therefore, any means such internal groups use to prosecute a war are by definition, wrong. However, by this standard, the United States exists because of acts of terrorism.

The question becomes, then, to define terrorism and then to evaluate acts of terrorism according to whether they are acts of a just war or not. If groups of people who are politically organized but do not have a nation of their own prosecute a just war, their acts may be justified. This requires that we look at the intentions of the group prosecuting the war, and whether they have just cause or not.

It stands to reason that probability of success must be considered in a just war; otherwise the soldiers and civilians are likely to endure great hardship for little gain. However, fights for self-determination, liberation or freedom may not have a guarantee of success at the onset. However, when a sub-nation of people is oppressed, denied basic civil liberties or systematically repressed by the ruling government, some could view as those goals as so compelling that they would justify the attempt. The United States exists because a political group within a state believed this to be true.

The most compelling argument against any legitimacy for terrorists might be the concept of "legitimate authority." However, the fact of sovereignty does not automatically confer moral authority. If that were the case, Hitler would have had a legitimate right to Poland, and racial segregation would be acceptable if the government said so. There is no question of sovereign authority when a nation wages war, but it is more difficult when the war is waged by a stateless nation. However, the world has multiple populations who are stateless through no fault of their own and who want to liberate themselves to be self-determining nations. If these groups of people see themselves as a national entity with just cause, their prosecution of war should be judged by the same standards applied to nations already formed. To have just cause, we do not need a victimized state but a victimized group of people who see themselves as a nation of people.

The main justification for condemning terrorism is because some have defined it as unjustified random murder. No country could be said to be prosecuting a just war if it went into a neighboring country and randomly slaughtered the citizens without regard to military need. If this were the definition of terrorism, then all rational people would agree that it is wrong under all circumstances. However, terrorist groups sometimes pick strategic targets to achieve nationally-based goals. A good example of this would be the French underground during World War II, characterized by the Axis powers as terrorists and by the Allies as valuable members of a war effort. Although the French underground had an implied mantle of sovereignty over them, this concept could easily be extended to the Kurds of Iraq or the Palestinians in the Middle East, both clearly identifiable groups of people with common goals and interests who want to be free of governments who treat them oppressively.

Since recognized nations states fighting just wars also commit acts of random violence against citizens on occasion, each act of war by itself and its justification must be considered, and not simply whether the group prosecuting the war has nation status yet or not.

By the definition of acceptable terrorism as acts of war of military significance intended to advance the group's likelihood of achieving independence, political groups who commit terrorism as a way to communicate a message would be terrorists, but those fighting to emancipate themselves from a government imposed on them would not be. Those fighting for freedom and liberty should have their actions judged in the same way that war tactics are judged by the rest of the world when committed by recognized nations.