‘Rethinking Terrorism in International Law: An Enquiry into the Legal Concept of International State Terrorism’ (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Defence of the Concept of ‘State Terrorism’
In a context in which academics and policy-makers argue that the notion of 'state terrorism' is unnecessary and unhelpful, the aim of this paper is to provide a defence of the concept and an argument for widening and deepening its study. There are five main arguments typically employed against the concept of state terrorism: (1) states have a legitimate right to use violence; (2) state repression differs from terrorism because the victims are not chosen randomly; (3) state violence is not publicity-seeking; (4) what is described as state 'terrorism' is already adequately described and proscribed as 'repression', 'human rights abuses', 'war crimes', etc: and (5) even if states do engage in acts of 'terrorism', it has different aims, methods and outcomes to non-state terrorism. In the paper, I demonstrate in a step-by-step process how each of these arguments are flawed and based on a misreading of the nature of terrorist violence. I conclude that for both analytical and normative reasons, 'state terrorism' is a useful and important concept. The final section of the paper makes the case for widening and deepening the study of state terrorism and outlines a preliminary future research based on the current state of knowledge.
New Terrorism, New Law? Analysing the Legality of Using Force Against non-State Actors - 2007
University for Peace – Department of International Law and Human Rights
The only established exception to the general prohibition to use force unilaterally is selfdefence. Three conditions must be fulfilled: the occurrence of an armed attack, attribution of responsibility for the commission of such attack, and that force be executed under the parameters set forth by what is necessary and proportionate. Though generally accepted in inter-State relations, application of these norms to acts perpetrated by non-State actors with violent methods and transnational reach is deeply contested. Opinions vary: while some vouch for the need to rewrite the laws, others believe they should be reinforced, discarding any re-interpretation whatsoever. The following paper will examine these positions in four parts: first, by describing the use of force paradigm as it currently stands under the UN Charter and customary international law. Secondly, through the analysis of the concept of "armed attack" and its applicability when dealing with non-State actors. Thirdly, by reviewing the laws of attribution of responsibility to a State for the actions of private groups, assuming that between the 'victim' State and a non-State aggressor will always stand the political independence of another State. Finally, it will discuss the notions of responding vis-à-vis anticipating an attack, and their conformity to the requirement of resorting to force only when absolutely necessary and proportionate.
War on the Enemy: Self-Defence and State-Sponsored Terrorism
In the international law system, internal mechanisms are the appropriate responses to terrorist acts through domestic criminal law. The weakness of domestic criminal law is however evident in the face of transnational terrorists groups whose scope spreads across many borders. The challenge is compounded when States actively or passively support terrorism. Though traditionally State responsibility has been the vehicle through which pressure is exerted on States sponsoring terrorism, the lethal capabilities of terrorists demonstrated by the September 11, 2001 attacks has fundamentally changed the landscape. The consequences of breaches arising out of a failure by a State to effectively curtail terrorist organisations based or operating out of its territory have expanded sharply, permitting not just financial reparations or other traditional benign countermeasures, but even the extensive use of deadly military force. With the linkage between the terrorist and the sponsoring state becoming crucial to providing States with the justification for a response against rogues States, this Article discusses the issue of State-sponsored terrorism and the use of military force in combating terrorism in the context of the UN Charter regime on the use of force by States.
The State as a Terrorist? Arguing for a Category of “State Terrorism”
The term ‘terrorism’ is usually applied in a very narrow sense to refer to acts of violence carried out by non-state actors. The question remains whether a certain type of violence committed by state forces can be also legitimately be referred as ‘terrorism’. This topic is highly controversial in the academic field. This contribution argues strongly in favour of the proposition that there is such a thing as “state terrorism”.
Prohibition of Terrorism During Armed Conflicts
2020
The problem of the definition of terrorism is controversial and relevant to international law. The universal definition is not yet reached in international treaties; thus the discussion of the question is important in distinguishing this phenomenon from other so called “regular” crimes. The aim of the article is to reveal the elements of the definition of terrorism, paying particular attention to the situations of armed conflict. The object of the research - norms of international law defining terrorism, enshrined in the provisions of international agreements concluded within the framework of various regional international organizations and the United Nations.
International terrorism as an instrument of political struggle and of injury to integrational law
Asian Journal of German and European Studies
International Terrorism happens since old ages, when it was classified as acts against the monarch. Only in modern age, it was classified as political crime committed against the State. However, despite the occurrence since ancient times, the topic gained practice importance in the International Agenda only after the international repercussion of September 11th. At this time, many researches described the political aspect of it, disregarding the economic scenario, especially considering the State interventionism that is taken to avoid economic chaos. Indeed, the State function is also discussed in order to understand how it may keep Social Welfare. This practice instils in collective perspective the association of terrorism with specific ethnic and religious groups, indirectly supporting a nationalist mentality that tends to be exploited by populist governments. This creates a bad view over resistant movements, in which are included the Third World Countries Movements, such as TWAIL...
The Use of Force against International Terrorrism: Everything Changes, Nothing Remains Still
PEACE & SECURITY-PAIX ET SÉCURITÉ INTERNATIONALES (EuroMediterranean Journal of International Law and International Relations), 2018
This article analyses the legality of international society’s reactions to terrorism with the use of force. It considers, in particular, the cases where States have interpreted the use of force prohibition and the right to self-defence extensively and whether international rules are evolving to permit more effective protection against the terrorist threat. L’EMPLOI DE LA FORCE CONTRE LE TERRORISME INTERNATIONAL: TOUT PASSE ET RIEN NE DEMEURE Cet article analyse la légalité des réactions armées de la société international devant le terrorisme. Il évalue, particulièrement, dans quels cas les États ont interprété d’une manière exten-sive la prohibition de l’emploi de la force, le droit de légitime défense et si les normes internationales pourraient évoluer pour permettre un réponse plus effective face au terrorisme EL USO DE LA FUERZA ARMADA CONTRA EL TERRORISMO INTERNACIONAL: TODO CAMBIA, NADA PERMANECE Este artículo analiza la legalidad de las reacciones armadas de la sociedad internacional ante el terrorismo. Se valora, en particular, en qué casos los Estados han interpretado de manera extensiva la prohibición del uso de la fuerza y el derecho de legítima defensa y en qué medida las normas internacionales pueden estar evolucionando para permitir una respuesta más efectiva frente a la amenaza terrorista.
TERRORISM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW: DEFINITION AND ACTION AGAINST IT
The definition of international terrorism is one of the most controversial issues of international law. In order to understand the dimension of the problem, note that a study of the US Army quoted a source that counted 109 definitions of terrorism including a total of 22 different definitional elements. This article tries to describe the main definitions of terrorism under international law and the action undertaken by the States at the international levels, analyzing the possibility to use the force in responding to a terrorist attack.
Terrorism and terrorists in contemporary international law
Many loopholes and unanswered questions remain in the field of terrorism and counter-terrorism at the international level. I decided thus to address three of them in my master thesis: the lack of international definition of terrorism, the role of the United Nations bodies in countering terrorism and how both terrorism and counter-terrorism measures can challenge human rights. Hopefully, the reading of my master thesis will advance a better understanding of terrorism under contemporary international law, and the main challenges ahead.
The past decades have seen an increasing amount of intra-State wars unfold. The term 'terrorism' has increasingly become a license for States to unilaterally conduct their action. Because of that, determining the applicable legal norms that delimit the State's military power and regulate the warring parties' conducts is of ultimate importance. Although the legal test for the applicability of international humanitarian law in non-international armed conflict has been largely settled – first found in the second Protocol additional to the Geneva Convention and second supplemented by international tribunals as declaratory of customary IHL – terrorism has caused much frustration in the course of such legal determination, not helped by the obscure facts on the ground. This article will argue that by subjectively classifying a situation as 'terrorism' the State has not displaced the applicability question. In fact, the impact that terrorism has on the legal assessment is minimal, if any.