Attempts to Define Terrorism: Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

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.

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-...

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?

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.[3][4] The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of "terrorism".[6][7] In some cases, the same group may be described as "freedom fighters" by its supporters and considered to be terrorists by its opponents.[8] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[9] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state)

Jigyasa: An Interdisciplinary refereed Research Journal , 2018

The threat of international terrorism is a real one. The word terrorism itself is capable of unleashing a sense of immense fear. The existential crisis that it is capable of generating can draw attention away from all the other issues facing mankind. It creates a sense of urgency and immediate danger to the survival of individuals. All the other issues regarding economy, development, climate change, become irrelevant when the actual fear for survival strikes. This fear has escalated at an alarming rate in the recent times.

This article examines various problems in defining and building consensus on the most controversial term—terrorism—in contemporary politics. The objective is to clarify the relativist enmesh to be able to distinguish between what constitutes freedom fighting and what would fall under the category of terrorism. The article attempts to authenticate the legitimacy of freedom movements which the states against which these are launched dub as terrorism. It is, therefore, argued that liberation movements which are recognized by the UN should not be termed as terrorism. However, the use of violence against noncombatants puts the legitimacy of such movements in doubt. Moreover, in order to come out of the relativist confusion regarding the popular saying—“one man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter”—it is necessary to evolve a clear definition to separate the two activities.

Security Dialogues /Безбедносни дијалози, 2015

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.