The U.S. Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. According to Joint Pub 3-07.2, Anti-Terrorism, (November 24, 2010), the Ministry of Defense defines it as “the unlawful use of force or threat of violence to instill fear and force governments or corporations. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political or ideological beliefs and engages in the pursuit of objectives that are usually political. Since the mid-1980s, the FBI has published Terrorism in the United States, an annual unclassified report that summarizes terrorist activities in that country. While this publication provided insight into the terrorist threat in the United States and its territories, its limited scope proved insufficient to convey the scale or magnitude of the terrorist threat facing U.S. interests, or the extent of the FBI`s response to terrorism worldwide. To better reflect the nature of the threat and the international scope of our response, the FBI expanded the focus of its annual terrorism report in the 2000/2001 edition to discuss FBI investigations abroad and renamed the terrorism series. Byrnes notes that “this law-specific approach to dealing with terrorism issues has continued in binding international treaties until relatively recently. Although political condemnation of terrorism in all its forms has progressed rapidly, there has been no successful attempt to define the term “terrorism” as such in a broader sense satisfactory for legal purposes. There was also some skepticism about the necessity, timeliness and feasibility of creating an agreed and achievable general definition. [34] Nevertheless, the United Nations General Assembly has been working since 2000 on a proposal for a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. This issue of Terrorism highlights significant terrorist events in the United States and some of the FBI`s investigative efforts abroad that took place between 2002 and 2005.
In addition, this report contains a wide range of statistical data on terrorism in the United States over the past two decades. This material is presented to provide readers with a historical framework for the study of contemporary terrorism issues. It is time to put aside the debates about so-called “state terrorism”. The use of force by States is already strictly regulated by international law. And the right to oppose the occupation must be understood in its true sense; it cannot include the right to intentionally kill or maim civilians. I fully support the High Level Group`s call for a definition of terrorism that would specify that, in addition to acts already prohibited by existing conventions, any act constitutes terrorism if it is intended to inflict death or serious bodily harm on civilians or non-combatants in order to intimidate a population or force a government or international organisation to: To take action or refrain from any action. I believe that this proposal has a clear moral force and I urge world leaders to unite behind it and conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly. [47] Since 2000, the United Nations General Assembly has been negotiating a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.
The definition of the crime of terrorism that has been on the negotiating table since 2002 is as follows: In 1985, when I was deputy director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my task force] was asked to develop a definition of terrorism that could be used across government. We produced about six, and each case was rejected because a careful reading would indicate that our own country was involved in some of these activities. […] After the task force completed its work, Congress passed Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 2331. the U.S. definition of terrorism. […] One of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that, and I quote, “appear to be aimed at influencing the conduct of a government through mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” […] Yes, of course, you can imagine a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, of course, the terrorist is in the eye of the viewer. [62] More recently, the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, on the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, which applies Article 1 in situations. paragraph 4 `. in which peoples struggle against colonial domination and foreign occupation and against racist regimes… “, contains many ambiguities that obscure the question of who is a legitimate fighter and who is not.
[30] These difficulties led Pamala Griset to conclude that “the meaning of terrorism is rooted in the philosophy of a person or a nation. Therefore, determining the “correct” definition of terrorism is subjective. [31] In September 2002, the U.S. National Security Strategy defined terrorism as “deliberate and politically motivated violence against innocent people.” [65] This definition did not exclude the actions of the U.S. government and was relativized a few months later by “deliberate and politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or secret agents.” [66] Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, who coordinated the negotiations on the draft United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, stressed the need to give a precise definition of terrorist activities in international law: “Criminal law has three objectives: to declare that conduct is prohibited, to prevent it, and to express society`s condemnation for illegal acts. The symbolic and normative role of criminalization is of particular importance in the case of terrorism. The criminalization of terrorist acts expresses society`s revulsion towards them, provokes social censorship and shame, and stigmatizes those who commit them. In addition, criminalization through the creation and affirmation of values can have a deterrent effect against terrorism in the long term, as those values are internalized. [19] Therefore, international treaties to prevent, condemn and punish terrorist activities require precise definitions: NATO defines terrorism in the NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions AAP-06, 2019 Edition as “The unlawful use or threat of use of force or force that instills fear and terror against individuals or property for the purpose of: to force or intimidate governments or corporations, or to take control of a population in order to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.” .