What defines a terrorist
Syed Manzar Abbas Zaidi2011, DAWN
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
WHEN 'terrorism' is used to refer to certain groups or their actions, it risks straying into the realm of subjectivity. The attacks of September 2001 and the terrorism associated with Al Qaeda have only added exponentially to the existing confusion regarding the definition of the word by popularising new terms and phrases such as 'international terrorism', 'global terrorism', 'catastrophic terrorism' etc.
Related papers
Various Definitions of Terrorism Controversy in Defining Terrorism
The difficulty in defining " terrorism " is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate; therefore, the modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The majority of definitions in use has been written by agencies directly associated with government, and is systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative-it denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. As a practical matter, so-called acts of " terrorism " or terrorism are often a tactic committed by the actors as part of a larger military or geo-political agenda.
Terrorism Can and Should be Defined. But How
Strategic Analysis, 2019
The debate over what constitutes terrorism spans a wide, diverse and largely a competing body of intellectual strands. In particular, the lack of consensus on the need (or otherwise) for a universally acceptable definition or no definition at all characterizes the discursive dynamics of the definitional subfield. Conversely, there is a persistent tendency of circumspection to embrace methodologies, e.g. case study frameworks, that can prove to be more helpful in conceptualizing terrorism. By contextualizing the terrorist violence in Pakistan as a case, this article demonstrates that an objective definition of terrorism is conceivable if the phenomenon is understood contextually and as part of communication processes.
Why is it so Difficult to Define Terrorism?
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Why is it so difficult to define terrorism? 1. Reasons The term 'terrorism' is among the most frequently used words. It accompanies us on an everyday basis. It is apparently understood in a similar manner throughout the world, but it is actually interpreted and defined in different ways. "All vogue words appear to share a similar fate: the more experiences they pretend to make transparent, the more they themselves become opaque". 1 Terrorism is no exception to that rule. This has become particularly apparent following the events of September 11, Bali, Madrid and London. Terrorism is characterized not only by its manifold nature and complexity but also by the problem with its definition What is terrorism then? How can one define it? Which of the several hundreds of definitions is accurate? Why are they so numerous? The above questions only appear to be easy, or even trivial. They have actually been troublesome, even to those who have been analyzing and researching these problems for years. definitions published in the periodicals referred to fear and terror (element no 3) considerably less frequently (only 22%) than those analyzed by Schmid (51%). Element no 5-psych. effects reactions was also less frequent (5.5% compared to 41.5%). Regardless of the frequency of a given element, however, it is difficult and complex to make reference to over 20 features, as was the case in the studies by Schmid or Weinberg. Bearing this in mind, we should order the list and limit it to five key issues: 1/ Who?-who is the initiator, organizer, sponsor or executioner of the attack/attacks? 2/ How?-How was the attack prepared, conducted, executed? 3/ Why?-Why has a terrorist attack come about? This is a question about the sources, reasons, motives, etc. 4/ Who/what was the target? Who/what did the instance of terrorism concern? This is a question about the subject(s)-object(s) of the attack. 5/ What is the outcome?-This is a question about the consequences. 31 It is impossible to find an unambiguous answer to the question of what terrorism is if the considerations are narrowed down to five elements. However, it can order the situation somehow. In this way we will be closer to describing terrorism and its main components which can also provide a starting point for further analyses.
Why - and what - makes Terrorism such a difficult concept to define?
This essay seeks to examine why Terrorism is such a hard concept to define. It was completed as part of an under-graduate degree in Politics under a module entitled "Terrorism". I believe that understanding and unpacking the intricacies and complexities of this issue will help us gain a greater understanding of the topic going forward.
Is It Possible to Give a Coherent Definition of Terrorism
Terrorism takes many forms, differing seemingly on each continent in terms of the aims of the terrorist and their associates. This essay considers whether or not it is possible to accurately define terrorism, given these variables.
The Plurality of Meanings ‘Terrorism’- the Theoretical and Practical Importance of Understanding the phenomena
Security Dialogues /Безбедносни дијалози, 2015
Understanding Terrorism: A Semantic Conundrum
What is Terrorism? What explains it? What defines it? Does the world have an objective understanding of the same? This report talks about the abstract idea of defining terrorism and magnifying the focus towards the need of its general understanding.
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.
The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism
2004
This analysis begins by exploring various reasons that the concept of terrorism has evaded a widely agreed upon definition for so long despite the efforts of so many writers. Emphasis is placed on the difficulties associated with all “essentially contested concepts.” In addition, the investigation calls attention to such problems as conceptual “stretching” and “traveling.” In an effort to solve the difficulties, the inquiry attempts to determine a consensus definition of terrorism by turning to an empirical analysis of how the term has been employed by academics over the years. Specifically, the well-known definition developed by Alex Schmid, based upon responses to a questionnaire he circulated in 1985, is compared with the way the concept has been employed by contributors to the major journals in the field: Terrorism, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, and Terrorism and Political Violence. The 22 “definitional elements” of which Schmid's definition is composed are compared to the frequency with which they appear in the professional journals. If these elements appear frequently in both the Schmid definition and those employed by the journal contributors, they are then used to form a consensus definition of the concept. The most striking feature of this academic consensus over the meaning of terrorism is the virtual absence of references to the psychological element, heretofore widely thought to be at the heart of the concept.
Related topics
Related papers
Can Terrorism Be Defined?
Can "terrorism" be defined? Should it be? This chapter revisits the longstanding “problem of definition” in terrorism studies. It begins with a brief history of the coalescence of terrorism as a concept, revisiting key turns in the debate over how to define terrorism, and whether or not a settled definition is even possible. I argue that, instead, that instead of asking how terrorism should be defined, we instead analyze how debates over ‘terrorism’ define other central aspects of political and cultural life.
Why is there no commonly agreed definition for the term terrorism?
Introduction “No state should be allowed to profess partnership with the global coalition against terror, while continuing to aid, abet and sponsor terrorism.” 1 This statement highlights how states contribute to the discourse of terrorism. As a result, scholars find it difficult to agree on a common definition for the term ‘terrorism’, since the term has been used to label actions carried out by individual, non-state and state actors. From “protestors in Thailand, Tunisia, and Libya... to the Israeli attack on a flotilla of ships attempting to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, to the U.S. invasion of Iraq … to Syrian rebels attempting to overthrow the Assad regime, and to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who was described by U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell as a “high-tech terrorist.” 2 The issue with being unable to agree on a common definition of the term ‘terrorism’ means it results in hindering international efforts to counter terrorist threats, as “states cannot adequately counteract a phenomenon that they absolutely agree must be eliminated as long as they fundamentally disagree on its very definition” 3 putting innocent civilians safety at risk. This essay will assess the reasons why there is no commonly agreed definition for the term terrorism by examining: the various characteristics used to describe politically motivated actions, the nature of the act, and the changing actors throughout history engaging in acts of terrorism and the changing forms of violent acts to pursue political gains from both non-state and state actors.
Definition of Terrorism
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.
Critical Studies on Terrorism Why terrorism can, but should not be defined
This article seeks to turn the debate about the definition of terrorism on its head by arguing: (1) that the definitional debate has served to obscure the substantial scholarly consensus that actually exists on what terrorism is; (2) that this consensus is, however, largely unnecessary and irrelevant to the effective use of the term in the heterogeneous contexts within which it is employed; and (3) that by focusing on the quest for a definition of terrorism, terrorism scholars have largely missed the really interesting question about the word, namely, why it is that, given the heterogeneous purposes and contexts for which the word is used, we nonetheless continue to use a single word for all. In other words, how is it that we continue to know terrorism when we see it?
'Why is it so difficult to agree upon a definition of terrorism?'
One of the most debated issues in political science, whether tackling question of democracy, liberalism or terrorism, is 'definitional dilemma'. Political science is not specific as natural sciences. There are no rules for creating hypothesis, or coming up with explanation of certain issue from single point of view. Even categorisation, typical for the natural sciences, may generate a point of divergence among social scientists. Since almost entire world of social science must deal with abstract concepts, attention is usually aimed at theoretical argumentation, not reality. This essay will address: I) What is so generally difficult about the definition of terrorism, II) What is the difference between authoritarianism and terrorism, III) how has historical process of changing terrorism influenced its definition, IV) is there a possibility to deal with terrorism and initiate effective counter-terrorist mission when the definition is not entirely known, and finally, V) what are the future prospects of terrorist/anti-terrorist actions with regard to its definition. All of these pseudo-chapters are arranged to observe the dilemma from various angles and evaluate the possibility of future universal definition.
The debate over what constitutes terrorism
My newest piece about the controversy around the definition of "terrorism". Why aren’t mass shooters considered terrorists?
The Impossibility of Defining Terrorism
New Criminal Law Review, 2013
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.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.