The phenomenon of terrorism has featured in history since the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution (1793–1794) but has changed considerably since then. Therefore, a term that was used originally to describe governmental actions is now mostly used to refer to actions committed against civilians and perpetrated by individuals or groups not directly linked to a state. An examination of the historical evolution of terrorism reveals not only a change in the modus operandi of terrorist organizations but also a shift in the international dimension of the phenomenon. After discussing issues associated with defining terrorism within an international framework, this article focuses on the international efforts, including laws and models, to counter terrorism.
Defining Terrorism
The universal condemnation of terrorism since its introduction to the international agenda via the League of Nations in 1934 has not contributed significantly to the elaboration of a generally acceptable definition within an international framework. The United Nations (UN) General Assembly has played a central role in addressing some of the specific manifestations of international terrorism, such as airline hijacking, unlawful seizure of aircraft, and hostage taking, via the adoption of resolutions and conventions. According to UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60, titled “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism” (adopted on December 9, 1994), terrorism is described as “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” Although the relevant UN antiterrorism treaties criminalize particular manifestations of terrorism, they do not criminalize terrorism generally. Rather, they impose a duty on member states to render the said conduct an offense under their national laws and then prosecute or extradite the alleged offender.
The search for a universal definition of terrorism has been the subject matter of much academic work. Yet, it has not been possible to provide a clear and comprehensive definition, as there is disagreement in academic discussion as to the elements to be included in a definitional framework. Despite the lack of an accepted universal definition of terrorism, there seems to be a general agreement that most explanations typically involve reference to certain notions—more specifically, that terrorism refers to unlawful or illegitimate violence against deliberate targeting of civilians, which creates a state of fear in the general public for the achievement of political or ideological goals.
The definitional issues related to terrorism continue to be relevant. However, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the international agenda has developed toward concerns related to responses to terrorism, including the use of armed force against terrorism, preventive mechanisms related to domestic banking and financial institutions, and sharing of information and other binding forms of interstate cooperation.
International Counterterrorism Efforts
The international dimension of terrorism from the 1960s onward has led to the birth of a number of international instruments. These international instruments encompass different manifestations of violence upon civil aviation (e.g., 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft), civil maritime navigation and sea-based platforms (e.g., 1988 Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation), and attacks upon persons, including hostages, diplomats, and other internationally protected persons (e.g., 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons).
The establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee of the UN General Assembly (G.A. Res. 51/210) on December 17, 1996, has further elaborated terrorist bombing and terrorist financing conventions, followed by the elaboration of two other agreements: one on nuclear terrorism and a comprehensive convention on terrorism. In general, the UN anti-terrorism instruments place emphasis on suppression rather than on prevention of terrorist activity.
The UN anti-terrorism conventions establish a framework that encourages member states to assist each other in the global fight against terrorism and obliges them to either punish or extradite those responsible for the offenses prescribed therein. It should be reiterated, however, that the anti-terrorism international instruments do not themselves impose the duty to extradite the offender; rather, such duty is placed within the general extradition framework contained in various bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties.
The Role of International Law in the Fight Against Terrorism
International law plays a central role in the fight against terrorism as evident by the growing body of international treaties applicable to the crime of terrorism. As already outlined, the main benefit of this body of law is that it creates a framework within which national counterterrorism activities may take place, such as cooperation among states in preventing and suppressing terrorism. Likewise, the major effect of such international legal instruments is that they prescribe certain obligations to member states to criminalize certain terrorist activities under their national legal systems and encourage the judicial authorities of member states to initiate criminal proceedings.
As noted earlier, the UN is responsible for the creation of international treaties and resolutions, and it does so via the Security Council, which is authorized by the Charter of the UN to adopt binding resolutions. An indicative example is Resolution 1373, which was adopted in 2001, after September 11. According to its provisions, states are obliged to freeze the financial assets of those who commit or attempt to commit acts of terrorism and their supporters, to deny them travel or safe haven, and to prevent terrorist recruitment and the supply of weapons. Furthermore, this resolution obliges countries to afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in investigating and prosecuting terrorist acts and calls upon them to sign and ratify the international conventions and protocols against terrorism. Moreover, Resolution 1540, which was adopted in 2004, obliges states to refrain from supporting by any means nonstate actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their delivery systems.
However, the approach of adopting international legal instruments is not without shortcomings. Almost all of the international instruments have been adopted as a response to major terrorist attacks and thus are reactionary rather than preventive in nature. In addition, the measures adopted by the Security Council require the existence of national legal mechanisms to implement them at a domestic level. However, the effectiveness of the Security Council’s measures can be affected negatively if states are unwilling to implement the measures domestically due to their own national interests. Thus, reliance on domestic implementation might disadvantage the fight against terrorism as the enforcement of the international legal framework is challenged.
Use of Force Against Terrorism
The right of self-defense is one exception to the UN Charter’s general prohibition on the use of force. As stated in Article 51 of the Charter: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the UN, until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Following S eptember 11, the United States responded by exercising its right to self-defense and employed the use of force as a counterterrorism method. The U.S. response raised a number of questions in relation to the existing international framework and the suitability of the use of force in the case of terrorism. Some have argued that the label terrorism could be abused by powerful states in order to justify military actions against another state (e.g., a state that might have links to or support terrorist organizations). Therefore, the international community via the UN and academic and political circles appears skeptical with regard to the application of the use of force as a counterterrorism model.
National Counterterrorism
The national counterterrorism module relies on a framework of criminal justice that potentially may protect democratic values while fighting terrorism at a national level. It seeks to ensure the legitimacy of the legal process when dealing with those responsible for terrorist offenses and places much emphasis on human rights considerations. However, evaluating what makes an effective strategy poses methodological difficulties, and it has been observed that because of the varied nature of terrorism and subsequent responses, a universally applicable methodology of analysis is not possible. It has been argued that a holistic strategy, containing elements of suppressive and preventive actions, could be effective. An example of a holistic strategy to combat international terrorism is the UK CONTEST strategy, which contains four pillars: Pursue, in order to stop terrorist attacks from taking place; Prevent, in order to stop people turning to terrorists or supporting violent extremists; Protect, in order to offer protection against terrorist attack; and Prepare, in order to mitigate the impact of an attack when it cannot be stopped and offer assistance in the aftermath. The complexity of contemporary terrorism, with its multifaceted and evolving nature, suggests that an effective counterterrorism strategy should encompass a combination of all available counterterrorism models in order to provide a coordinated and holistic answer to the challenge of terrorism.
References:
- Bassiouni, C. (2003). Introduction to international criminal law. New York, NY: Transnational.
- Crenshaw, M. (2011). Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Processes, and Consequences. Oxford, UK: Routledge,
- Duffy, H. (2005). The war on terror, and the framework of international law (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Hoffman, B., & Morrison-Taw, J. (2000). A strategic framework for countering terrorism. In F. Reinares (Ed.), European democracies against terrorism: Governmental policies and intergovernmental cooperation (pp. 3–29). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
- Kolb, R. (2004). The exercise of criminal jurisdiction over international terrorists. In A. Bianchi (Ed.), Enforcing international law norms against terrorism (pp. 227–281). Oxford, UK: Hart.
- Saul, B. (2006). Defining terrorism in international law. Oxford, UK: University Press.
- Schmid, A. (2011). The Routledge handbook of terrorism research. New York and London: Routledge.
- Walker, A. C. (2013). Counter-terrorism, human rights and the rule of law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.