Terrorism and terrorists in contemporary international law (original) (raw)
Related papers
Defining International Terrorism to Protect Human Rights in the Context of Counter-terrorism
Security and Human Rights
The main argument of this article is that defining international terrorism will further the protection of human rights in the context of counter-terrorism. For this purpose, it will be shown that the transnational legal system under which counter-terrorism operates is fraught with problems regarding human rights protection. Secondly, it will be shown how domestic counter-terrorism legislation can become a breeding ground for serious human rights violations, when based on too broad or otherwise problematic definitions of terrorism. Finally, it will be explored how human rights protection has been addressed so far by the relevant bodies of the United Nations and to what extent, if finalised, an internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism in the framework of the UN Comprehensive Convention will contribute to a fuller enjoyment of rights in a counterterrorism context.
Defining Terrorism in International Law so as to Foster the Protection of Human Rights
Revue Juridique de l'Océan Indian - Indian Ocean Law Review, 2013
Each and every one of us has spoken the word “terrorism”. But what does it mean? Despite the fact that it’s a very old phenomenon, there is no definition of terrorism at the international level. This legal black hole has enabled the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks to adopt resolutions urging States to combat terrorism “by all means”. This hard-line approach was fraught with consequences on the protection of international human rights at both national and international level. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that, so as to that the difference between terrorism and counterterrorism be merely a matter of perspective, it is of the utmost importance that the international community clearly and unequivocally define terrorism and counterterrorism all the while reasserting their intertwinement with human rights.
A critique of the international legal regime applicable to terrorism
Terrorism is a global phenomenon that permeates state borders and predominantly causes immeasurable suffering to civilians. The need for international cooperation and concerted efforts in combating terrorism cannot be gainsaid. Already, sectoral instruments have been passed to regulate certain aspects of terrorism. However, without a single terrorism specific instrument, acts of terrorism generally classified will fall under spheres of international law which include; public international law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. This paper makes a critical analysis of these spheres of international law and how they apply to states' counter-terrorism efforts.
A Quest for Defining Terrorism in International Law: The Emerging Consensus
Journal of International Studies, 2020
The United Nations (UN) has no internationally-agreed definition of terrorism. The definitional impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to adopt the Convention, and the deadlock continues to this day. The prime reason is the standoff with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The Arab Terrorism Convention and the Terrorism Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference defines terrorism to exclude armed struggle for liberation and self-determination. This increased its complexity and vagueness. The aim of this paper is to examine the definitional aspect of terrorism and the challenges faced in adopting a single universally accepted definition by the international community. The methodology adopted in this paper is purely a library based research focusing mainly on primary and secondary sources. The paper concludes that nations or states have to come to agr...
PhD programme in History, Studies of Security and Defence, 2019
The role of terrorism in political discourse changed dramatically over the last fifty years, moving from ambiguity to the forefront of public policy and security concern. After the 9/11 attacks, terrorism has earned the news headlines, and has become a global security priority. Governments and the international community have enhanced measures to counter international and transnational terrorism, although there is no universally accepted definition of the term. The lack of an undisputed and legally binding definition of terrorism leaves significant room for free interpretation by policymakers. Governments are given what is essentially a carte blanche to develop programs and counter-terrorism initiatives that may lead, or have already led, to the development of policy that infringes on fundamental human rights. This thesis investigates the connection between terrorism and fundamental human rights. The question that guided this dissertation is the potential consequence of arbitrary and politically-driven definitions of terrorism over counter-terrorism policy and fundamental human rights. The thesis moves from a historical framing of the concept of terrorism that changes with time. There are many definitions of the term, and there is no common definition with legal value. The current debate on terrorism is linked almost exclusively with non-state actors, which implies that state and terrorism have no linkage, even if there are evidences of these ties. The thesis scrutinizes the instrumentalization of terrorism, starting from an analysis of the concept based on three pillars: historical, theoretical-conceptual and legal (in the light of international law and human rights law). Then an empirical analysis based on these tools through the use of political and legal mechanisms to obtain a political output was conducted. To answer the starting question, the research moved from a historical-documentary analysis, then took into consideration the literature, and focused on how the states use the justification of the fight against international terrorism to restrict fundamental human rights. After the theoretical-conceptual and legal analysis, the research focuses on the legal aspects of the War on Terror and security policies. Large part of the empyrical research is dedicated to scrutinize the case of Turkey after the 2016 coup d'état attempt, to review some rulings of the European Courts, and to examine some prominent 'terrorist' organizations. While this topic presents a serious challenge, it does open much room for possible explorations of new fields of research without necessitating a fixed point of departure – or arrival. The thesis ends suggesting some future research directions.
GL4889A: International Law and Terrorism – Final Essay
In this essay, I argue that classifying terrorists as criminals would be the more legally compliant and politically efficient counter-terrorism strategy, although political barriers exist to fully exploit its usefulness.
Elusive Legal Definition of Terrorism at the United Nations
Strathmore Law Journal, 2017
Terrorism is indisputably a serious security threat to states and individuals. Yet, by the end of 2016, there was still lack of consensus on the legal definition of terrorism at the United Nations (UN) level. The key organs of the UN, the Security Council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (UNGA), are yet to agree on a legal definition of terrorism. This disconnect is attributed partly to the heterogeneous nature of terrorist activities and ideological differences among member states. At the UN level, acts of terrorism are mainly tackled from the angle of threats to international peace and security. In contrast, at the state level, acts of terrorism are largely defined as crimes and hence dealt with from the criminal justice paradigm. This article argues that the lack of a concrete legal definition of terrorism at the UN level undermines the holistic use of the criminal justice paradigm to counter-terrorism at the state level. To effectively counter-terrorism the UNSC and the UNGA have...