Working Title: - The Terrorism in International Law and Human Rights (original) (raw)
Related papers
Definitional Dilemma of “Terrorism” Under International Law
JURNAL UNDANG-UNDANG DAN MASYARAKAT, 2019
Terrorism is not a domestic issue but is instead a global phenomenon. The changing form of terrorism is going to be complex day by day. Every State is facing terrorism, and no State is immune to this disease. None the least, the lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism is a significant hindrance in developing effective international counter terrorism strategies. The 9/11 attacks in the US have unavoidably shaped the fight against by demanding a rapid and unified reaction from the international community. This Paper examines the meaning of terrorism and also evaluates the definitions of terrorism presented by various scholars. It also highlights the hurdles which are hindering in attaining a universally accepted definition of terrorism. Moreover, the definitions of terrorism by the International bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are also analysed. The analysis provides a foundation for any future evaluation on definition of terrorism under any domestic counter terrorism laws. This Paper concludes that a universally accepted definition of terrorism is necessary to help in curbing the issue of terrorism globally or domestically.
It is rather peculiar to note that there exists more than two hundred definitions of terrorism that exists in the literature on terrorism. This has made several terrorism scholars to abandon definitional debates on terrorism and instead, these scholars have opted to use this term un-reflectively. This has in turn impede theoretical progress in addition to placing terrorism study in unhelpful ways. The consequences and significance of the debate about the definition of terrorism is however much more beyond narrow academic boundaries, important as they be to the field. Instead, the question of definition is pertinent to the manner in which the international war on terror has been prosecuted both overseas and domestically by the authorities.
PROBLEMS AND PROGRESS IN DEFINING TERRORISM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
There is an effort to adopt an internationally accepted legal definition for 'terrorism' since such definition will enhance international cooperation in fighting terrorism, which at the moment is fragmented and ineffective. However, various obstacles e.g. political heterogeneity or ideological discrepancy arise when seeking a uniformed definition of terrorism, hence this study.
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.
NEED FOR A GLOBALLY AGREED UPON DEFINTION OF TERRORISM
2011
Globally, terrorism is known to involve the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes; it is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. It is out of place that despite the destructiveness of this cruel and evil crime, there is yet to be a globally agreed upon definition for it and this poses problem for the entire international community. This paper states different definitions of terrorism as given by international organisations, states and individuals. It goes further to analyse the different features common to the various definitions of terrorism. Further to this, the paper highlights the obstacles to having a globally agreed upon definition of terrorism and finally states the benefits of having such an agreed upon definition of terrorism.
2016
Reaching an agreed definition of terrorism has proved problematic, with over 100 different working definitions counted. Consensus stumbles particularly on issues of legitimacy, assessing reasons behind the violence and whether a state can commit acts of terrorism - or whether they are to be excluded as they have the monopoly on legitimate violence. Greater empirical research and independence in terrorism scholarship is required to formulate an agreed definition. States should not be exempt from terrorism as part of a broader movement excluding any consideration of the motives or causes cited as the reason for the attack. The definition should focus on the nature of the act, not the philosophy behind it. For even if the cause or grievance is understandable, and can be reasonably argued with a defence of necessity, that does not mean the violence undertaken should cease to be illegal and inhumane. The ends must be separated from the means. Clarity of definition is crucial for counter-...
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.