The term “terrorism” remains one of the most used words in geopolitics and international relations. Although the word might have a standard meaning, different countries across the world have often drawn different meanings and interpretations. The use of the word terrorism became prevalent following the September 11 attacks on the United States and other heinous acts of terror witnessed in Madrid, Bali, and London among other areas. Researchers have since found out that terrorism is known for its complexity, manifold nature, and most fundamentally, the problem associated with its definition. Today, no single definition of terrorism exists that could be applied in more several jurisdictions. This is despite the efforts made by academicians, consultative bodies, states, and international organizations to come up with a uniform meaning of the word. The search for a common meaning has further been complicated by the emergence of the new forms of terrorism in the domestic arenas and the rise of nationalistic movements in countries such as the US. The achievement of an internationally acceptable definition of terrorism has been curtailed by grey areas that result from confusion with other crimes, deliberate failure to acknowledge acts of terrorism, and the social construction perpetuated by the media and society.
The concept of terror has existed for many years and in different forms. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) agree with the lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism. However, it is essential to note that the United Nations (UN) appreciates the importance of having a legal definition of terrorism. Having a standard definition enables nations to understand and appreciate all the actions that count as terrorism. Most critically, it provides the rationale of identifying who should be regarded as a terrorist. In the quest to find the true definition of terrorism, it is critical to assess some of the most recent happenstances that have been classified as such. Hodgson & Tadros, (2013) looks at several incidences including the September 11 attacks, the October 12 bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton, and the 2002 beheading of an American journalist by the Pakistani. According to the authors, these events share certain similar characteristics such as the presence of death and the fact that they occurred outside the war context. In the cases described, specific political, ideological, and religious purposes were accomplished. The persons responsible for the actions were not state actors. Scholars and policymakers have however failed to accept which tenets among these should be used as the standard definition of terrorism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Other than the multifaceted nature of terrorism, global bodies such as the UN among others have also failed to agree on the accepted definition of terrorism. Bruce (2013) describes that after the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre, the UN was unable to acquire the universal definition of terrorism. The author goes further by saying, “Some nations, particularly in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, were unwilling to label groups as terrorists if they sympathized with their aims, because of the pejorative aspects of the label” (p. 26). The west has also been implicated with sympathizing with groups conducting acts of terror. For example, the Reagan administration was heavily criticized for showing support towards the Nicaraguan Contras. Also, in the mid-1980s, the African National Congress, despite engaging in terrorism, received support from the western countries. Therefore, such hypocrisy has been mentioned as one of the factors responsible for the lack of a legal definition of terrorism. What could be regarded as terror in one country or jurisdiction might not be regarded in a similar way when it comes to another country. The growing number of terror apologists will thus implicate any genuine efforts to come with a standardized meaning for terrorism.
Also, there have been significant challenges in an attempt to understand the differences between criminal acts and acts of terrorism. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) opines that there is no single accepted definition of terrorism. However, the authors believe that political terrorism is characterized by two fundamental aspects including the presence of violence and political intentions. However, several other acts of crime bear similar characteristics. Examples include the genocides, massacres, and guerilla warfare among others. In all these cases, the intention or focus lies on the causing death with a politically instigated agenda. However, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (1980) seeks to describe some of the slight differences existing between terrorism and other acts such as guerilla. First, terrorists have an urban focus whereas the guerilla conducts their activities in the rural setting. Whereas guerrilla warfare can include the military, police, or the government, in most instances, the perpetrators in terrorism are civilians. Thirdly, contrary to popular beliefs, the death toll in terrorism is lower compared to other crimes against humanity such as genocides and guerilla warfare. Despite the genuine efforts to distinguish terrorism with other crimes, the existence of a grey area has often complicated the issue.
Some countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) have gone ahead in an attempt to give terrorism a “one-size fits all” definition. However, the definition has been criticized for showing signs of broadness and vagueness. As a result, this has prompted Greene, (2017) to conclude that “it is preferable to adopt a multi definitional approach to the concept of terrorism in legal terms, with the definition used being determined by the powers exercisable in respect of it” (p. 412). According to the authors, the problem with defining terrorism stems from its tendency to oscillate in meaning. Each of the action that has been classified as terrorism has often reflected ideas that are contextually specific to a given time period and the particular location of happening. It is also crucial to note that the definition of terrorism has evolved over the years. Initially, it was regarded as state-sponsored violence aimed at inducing terror and fear to control an anarchy society. However, today, most definitions have seen it as political violence directed against the legitimacy of a state (Greene, 2017). In the late 19 th century, terrorism was a term used to refer to acts of anarchy especially following the 1901 assassination of the US president William McKinley. The changes witnessed in the definition of terrorism throughout history, therefore, confirm the fact that it is a social construct.
Greene (2017) believes that terrorism should be regarded as a social construct because the meaning and conceptions are shaped by the subjective perspective of a person. The sentiments are further shaped by the society and the unique circumstances that the categorizer exists. The context can vary depending on the prevailing political and historical landscape. Therefore, the attempts to define terrorism have significantly differed depending on the branches of knowledge, paradigms, and methodologies applied. As such, this explains why the legal definition of terrorism has failed in most circumstances. Green (2017) dwells on two fundamental reasons why the definition of terrorism at the international level has been unable in most circumstances. First, states have occasionally differed in their attempts to differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. Secondly, states have failed to reach a consensus whether the definition of terrorism in the context of international law should include state acts or not. In the past, the UK insisted that terrorists and the freedom fighters should be regarded in equal measures given the struggles they faced with the Irish Republican Army. On the contrary, Arab states thought otherwise by taking a different stance. Other than castigating the Palestinian resistance, they defended their endeavors during the Israeli occupation (Greene, 2017).
The US State Department came up with the “Patterns of Global Terrorism.” Based on this dispensation, terrorism is defined as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombat targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually to influence an audience” (Saleem & Tahir, 2014). Based on the definition, terrorism has three fundamental aspects that differentiate it from other forms of violence. First, political motivation must be present. Secondly, the violence must be directed towards noncombatants. It thus implies that this violence is directed to civilians who lack the much-needed impetus to defend themselves from any form of aggression. Thirdly, the act of terror must be conducted by clandestine or subnational groups of people. Saleem & Tahir (2014) believe that the fundamental role of terrorism is to inflict a sense of fear and terror among civilians. The target population can include civilians, government officials, and even police officers with the aim of deterring them from performing their roles. Terrorism, in some instances, is used to compel a state to give in to certain demands. The multifaceted and complex nature of terrorism as witnessed in its causes, characteristics, and defining aspects makes it difficult to define. As previously shown, the definition is subject to change depending on the prevailing circumstances. No two different terror activities will have the same characteristics. Therefore, summarizing the definition in one or two sentences continues to give many international bodies and countries a difficult time.
The rise of domestic terrorism in the United States, including other radicalized groups, has further complicated the quest to find a uniform description of terrorism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as violence perpetrated by individuals “with primarily US-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature” (Dilts, 2019 p. 712). Although federal law has played a critical role in providing the required definition, they have often fallen short when it comes to attaching criminal penalties. This is even though domestic terrorism remains one of the most significant threats to national security. The lack of charges connected to domestic terrorism is an excellent example of how the government has failed to treat this form of crime in equal measure with international terrorism. The US justice system has several discrepancies when dealing with the victims of both domestic and international acts of terror. An international terrorism victim can bring a civil action against the perpetrators. The federal law has gone to lengths to describe the damages that the victims can receive if they win the case. However, the victims of domestic terrorism do not have a rationale for seeking any monetary justice from the criminal justice system. The differential treatment of the two forms of terrorism further complicates the quest to find a unified definition of what entails an act of terrorism.
Through media and social conceptions, the distinction between domestic and international terrorism has continued to grow widely. Dilts (2019) believes that the September 11 attacks changed the way the American media viewed and handled matters of terrorism. The media helped create a notion that terrorist attacks in the US would only emanate from the extremist Islamic militia. However, since the attacks, domestic terror alone has been responsible for the death of 119 people and an injury to 23 others (Dilts, 2019). Important to note is that the two groups of terrorists are responsible for an almost equal number of deaths. However, the Americans are hell-bent on maintaining a racially influenced perception regarding who a terrorist is. The media has been implicated in this social construction. The media is likely to portray individual from the Middle East as terrorists compared to the white actors. In justifying this, Dilts (2019) says, “Former FBI agent Mike German explained that law enforcement’s use of the term “terrorism” in some instances but not others create a two-tiered system of justice in which minority communities feel less protected” (p. 722). The white nationalist movements have been responsible for many attacks that have occurred more frequently compared to international terrorist activities. However, they have received less attention, focus, and most importantly, the much-needed retribution.
Domestic and international terrorism have only been treated the same under very few circumstances. As such, this has played a vital role in showing their similar nature thereby making it difficult to justify the disparate treatment of the two incidents. It, therefore, requires a change in mentality to attain a singular unifying definition of terrorism. It calls on media objectivity and a holistic assessment of all the acts of violence against humanity happening in the US. The mentality of “embracing our own” has also played a critical role in the growing debate to define terrorism. As shown in the Middle East countries, many Americans are unwilling to label their citizens are terrorists and instead, use other criminal terms to justify their actions. International terrorism has often relied on excuses to justify acts of violence. For instance, the jihadists have applied religion as a way to warrant their deeds. The same has also been witnessed in the case of domestic terrorism. Other than calling it for what it is, security agencies have deliberately avoided the mention of the word terrorism for fear of the perception that this might place the country on the international map. Therefore, it is crucial to appreciate the internal politics such as these that have made it difficult for the world to come up with a legal definition of terrorism.
Several steps must be taken into consideration in an effort to have an internationally accepted definition of terrorism. Dilts (2019) believes that certain ground rules need to be put in place. First, emphasis needs to be placed on bridging the widened gap between international and domestic terrorism. Secondly, all socially constructed and racially charged descriptions of terrorism need to be eliminated for better objectivity. Thirdly, the definition should focus on several aspects, including the motive, nature of violence, and the outcome. A consideration that focuses on all these aspects, therefore, makes it possible to come up with a definition that will be used universally to describe the acts of terror.
The achievement of an internationally acceptable definition of terrorism has been curtailed by grey areas that result from confusion with other crimes, deliberate failure to acknowledge acts of terrorism and the social construction perpetuated by the media and society. Crimes such as genocides, massacres, and guerilla warfare have numerous characteristics that overlap with terrorism. The deliberate failure by countries such as the US to treat domestic terrorism in equal measure with international terrorism has also negatively implicated the efforts to have a standard definition. The social constructions which are mainly racially charged have also contributed to the impasse. Other reasons include the failure to distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters and the multifaceted nature of the crime.
References
Bruce, G. (2013). Definition of Terrorism, Social, and Political Effects. Journal of Military & Veterans’ Health, 21(2), 26–30. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=92504779&site=eds-live
Dilts, K. (2019). One of These Things is not like the other: Federal Law’s Inconsistent Treatment of Domestic and International Terrorism. University of the Pacific Law Review, 50(4), 711–734. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=137767553&site=eds-live
Greene, A. (2017). Defining Terrorism: One Size Fits All? International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 66(2), 411–440. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000070
Hodgson, J. S., & Tadros, V. (2013). The impossibility of defining terrorism. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 494-526.
National Criminal Justice Reference https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=69342
Saleem, M., & Tahir, M. A. (2014). On Defining Terrorism: Text And Context - A Qualitative Approach. Dialogue (Pakistan), 9(1), 27–38. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=97465113&site=eds-live
