Does a Universal Definition of Terrorism exist?
Introduction
Scientific desire to define any existing phenomenon may seem a little far from practical application; however, the truth is that the defining frequently plays a crucial role. A vivid example is the worldwide struggle for the defining of terrorism, which despite desperate efforts still does not make an answer closer than it was centuries ago. The importance of its defining is explained by the necessity of governments to respond to it in an unambiguous and legal ways, whereas communities (including international ones) must recognize those responses as legitimate and not capricious (Smelser, N. J., Mitchell, F. 2002, 13).
Why this task occurs to be so sophisticated for the most talented minds of the humankind? Indeed, this paper is dedicated for the disclosure of unanswerable nature of universal terrorism definition, emphasizing its subjective character, which serves as sticking point for anyone, who dares to propose globally acceptable definition.
Any society, regardless part of the world, has own version of common phrase that a person, who is a terrorist for ones, is a national hero for others. In fact, it hides the deep and profound truth concerning terrorism, which is allegedly so clear and understandable at first glance, but so elusive in fact. Despite we struggle for great equity and international balance, subjective viewpoints obstruct global community from one single definition.
Furthermore, terrorism is not as straightforward as it may mistakenly seem to be. All its dimensions (legal, political, economical, social, cultural, symbolic) constantly interact, hence, this very combination broadens the borders of terrorism to such wide horizons, that they merely cannot be squeezed in one definition. All these problematic points are thoroughly considered in this article, which eventually concludes that there can exist only general definition, specific aspects of which are to be comprehensively added by particular national legal orders.
The Variety of Definitions
As it was mentioned, the countless amounts of definitions is already proposed by different state as well as international bodies, high-powered people in various fields of life – from political to cultural. However, any of them still does not deserve an official, universally acceptable status. Perhaps, something has been missed? Let us consider the grandest of them in order to propose own verdict for the possibility of existing of the one and only definition, acceptable for all times and peoples.
Given by Official Bodies
Progressive states of contemporary times from clear reasons are eager to find the one, agreed-upon definition. That is why all authoritative state bodies as well as international organizations analyze all dimensions of this issue in order to suggest one eventual version. For instance, NATO definition of terrorism is the following: “the unlawful or threatened use of force or violence to coerce or intimidate governments or to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives” (Marinov, I 2009, 97). Simultaneously, the U. N. still does not find any consensus on this issue. In UN Declaration on measures for eliminating international terrorism was remarked the following: “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general publicare unjustifiable, whatever the considerations may be invoked to justify them” (Antonio, P., Sánchez F. 2009, 31). In addition, the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism considers that “it is meant to inflict dramatic and deadly injury on civilians and to create an atmosphere of fear, generally for a political (whether secular or religious purpose)” (Schmid, A. P. 2011, 56).
Apart from global international organizations, particular international blocks participate in the elaboration of one definition. For instance, Shanghai Cooperation Organization Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism gives the broad interpretation, including to it any offense from treaties, listed in the Annex of this Convention. It also understands as terrorism “other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilianor to cause major damage to any material facility” underlying its purpose of intimidation a population, violation of public security or compelling authorities (Saul, B. 2012, n. p.).
Moreover, authoritative bodies of particular states for the enhancing of own efficiency also suggest definitions. For example, the FBI’s definition is the following: “use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidatea government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”. In turn, the State Department defines: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Oliver W. et. al. 2014, n. p.). Another US body - Defense Department - has also taken part in global defining progress, asserting own understanding of terrorism as: "The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear, motivated byideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of usually political goals” (Mitchell 2012, n. p.).
The Diversity of Prisms, through which the Terrorism May Be Defined
Historical Dimension
The majority of people are convinced that terrorist attacks of last years represent new phenomenon, however terrorism has a long history, which is to be taken into account when considering the comprehensive definition. For instance, the long story stems from ancient times, when tyrannicide was rather common, whereas in Roman times that what we now call terrorism was widespread as an allegation of never-ending Roman power by public crucifixions and suffocations (Gus 2014, n. p.). The similar direction of terrorism, intended to destroy current political order was popular through ages – from medieval times, next centuries (e.g. Guy Fawkes’ rebellion) – to nowadays. Next terroristic attacks (from the 19th century and further), however, frequently targeting on political leaders, get new social-economic shades, concentrating on bloody struggle for new social reality.
What is interesting, modern terrorism differs a lot. At first, motives are more blurred – politically vague, religious or mystical as well as methods are asymmetrical, which naturally maximize casualties, as new technologies create unprecedented opportunities to bring terrorism into homes of millions of people (Gus 2014, n. p.). In comparison, terrorism in past was characterized by more scrupulous choice of victims, to the circle of which a less amount of casual people was included.
Overall, this brief research contributes a lot to the issue of terrorism defining, as it clarifies that some activities, which were not understood as terrorism at once, now are perceived as terroristic acts. Moreover, methods, motives and targets significantly change from generation to generation, but all of their displays still belong to the notion of terrorism, which consequently becomes harder and harder to define.
Economic Analysis of Terrorism
Terrorism concerns so much fields of life that some of which are rather easy to miss. For instance, however economic analysis of terrorism is not so popular, but it also is to influence the final definition of terrorism.
If such definition was concluded, then economic efforts of terror on financial markets and international trade, the post-terror fiscal and growth effects in developing and developed countries should be necessarily included (Brück, T. 2007, 5). Hence, economic analysis is crucially important not only in evaluating of losses, but economic doctrine is also able to assess current situation and suggest efficient methods of prevention.
Defining Terrorism with Symbolic Elements
In spite of the common association of terrorism with inhuman activities, which are to be analyzed exclusively through political or law-enforcing prisms, it is also a human-made phenomenon, hence should be estimated from a communication perspective. For instance, perhaps it may sound a bit unexpectedly at first, but often terrorism is a disfigured form of communication, distorted language of being noticed, and usually violent component of terrorism is underscored as being symbolic and designed to communicate a political message (Matusitz, J. 2014, 23).
In other words, universally acceptable definition of terrorism would be rather incomplete without including potential encoded “symbolic” sense of terroristic actions.
Legal Context of Terrorism
Frankly speaking, legal dimension of terrorism is understood as the most clear and applicable, and it indeed does not have to be underestimated. The deliberate act of terrorism under any legislation, including international law, belongs to criminal activity. The notorious attack on Twin Powers was without doubt the decisive factor in universal framework to combat terrorism with politico-legal responses (Antonio, P., Sánchez F. 2009, 313).
In fact, the appropriate legal understanding of terroristic activity facilitates the reality in multiple ways – from generalization of approaches in prosecution to establishment of deterrence mechanisms, which are to prevent and suppress real displays of terrorism. Consequently, a comprehensive international convention on terrorism would become a sufficient legal instrument to eliminate all overlaps, gaps and ambiguities, currently existing (Bassiouni, C. 2008, 702).
What Made Me Research and Define Terrorism
Having listed the variety of definitive approaches to terrorism and the complexity of interrelated dimensions, which constitute the nature of this destructive phenomenon, it is high time to explain my personal interest in this disputed topic.
Frankly speaking, as to me, it is extremely difficult to find the phenomenon, which could be as ambiguous and disputed as terrorism is. To tell the truth, I was fascinated by considerations, listed by Jongman, who proves that it is the problem with no solution, as we cannot give precise answers to almost any of rather simple questions regarding terrorism. For instance, it is almost impossible to answer whether current epidemic of terrorism is either novel or not, whether it is the weapon of the weak or powerful weapon, whether this issue is very important or counter-effective, hence, unimportant, whether it is lead by psychotic fanatics or rational rebels? (Jongman, A. J. 1988, 69).
Taking this into account, I have decided to clear these vague issues at first for myself, and then contribute to global understanding of terrorism, which undoubtedly is of vital importance.
Critical Analysis of Definitions
A rather wide list of above-mentioned definitions gives a solid ground for consideration. All of them differ with more or less numbers of aspects, but this difference is almost inevitable, as each organization defines terrorism in the most advantageous for itself light – either intentionally, or because of the specific character of own work, which makes it consider particular limited horizons.
Despite distinguishing features, some common sides are apparently seen. Common elements in most mentioned definitions include: 1) systematic use of physical violence – actual or threatened; 2) applicable against noncombatants; 3) audience is broader than immediate victims in mind; 4) creates a general climate of fear in a target population; 5) causes political and/or social change (Miller, L. & Hess, K. 2007, 428). Such features do constitute a considerable content of listed on previous pages definitions, naturally, with particular specifications and emphasizes. In other words, it may be concluded that however all dimensions of terrorism are impossible to be enumerated in one definition, but the most crucial of them are possible to create a very generalized definition, rather far from real variety of circumstances.
Perspectives of Universal Definition of Terrorism: For and Against
Such contested notion as terrorism is inevitably caused and influenced by social, cultural, political, legal, economic aspects, the understanding of which frequently diverges. Moreover, the terrorism per se has significantly changed for last centuries, hence, all its past displays, current realities and perspective prognoses are to be included in terrorism. As far as I am concerned, any official body or individual, who attempts to create a new agreed-upon definition, also inevitably traps with own subjective beliefs, which disfigure the eventual definition.
It may seem as situation with no solution; however, taken into account desperate efforts of global community, it seems to me that definition, of course rather general, does already exist. In fact, some general rules are already applicable, as terrorism is world-widely associated with violent methods, climate of fear and coercion, targeting at noncombatants etc. No doubt, such definition is rather elusive, as countless amounts of activities, which deserve to be recognized as terroristic acts, are out of the borders of such general features, but to be honest, such situation is unlikely to be ever changed due to considered above subjective and objective factors.
Conclusions
Considering exclusively theoretically, terrorism is understood rather narrow and clear – as illegal unjustifiable and coercive activity, the direct victims of which are frequently not those, whose conduct the terrorist wishes to affect (Wilkins, B. T. 2003, 10). However, real situation also provokes us to use rather subjective double standards, which condemn ones and justify the others. This is one of key obstacles, which make the establishment of universally acceptable definition of terrorism almost impossible.
In other words, a number of subjective reasons (comparatively broad interpretation of actions, which should be regarded as terroristic by representatives of different walks of life, of different national character, age, gender, political and religious belief) as well as objective (rapid change of extremely broad nature) make the defining process as almost unreachable target.
Simultaneously, the necessity of such universal definition is obvious. Hence, one possible variant is to use very general understanding, which takes into account the most crucial and important aspects, whereas national legal orders are welcomed to create more specific definitions, at the same time as harmonized with international ones as possible.
References
1. Antonio, P. & Sánchez, F., 2009. International Legal Dimension of Terrorism. Leiden: BRILL.
2. Bassiouni, C., 2008. International Criminal Law: Sources, Subjects and Contents. Leiden: BRILL.
3. Brück, T., 2007. The Economic Analysis of Terrorism. New York: Routledge. M.
4. Gus, M., 2014. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.
5. Jongman, A. J. & Schmid A. P., 1988. Political Terrorism: A New Guide To Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, And Literature. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
6. Marinov, I.” The Anticipated Role of Armed Forces Combating WMD Terrorism” in Aytaç,O., Kibaroğlu, M. (ed.), Defence Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2009.
7. Matusitz, J., 2014. Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
8. Miller,L. & Hess, K.,2007. Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
9. Mitchell, A., 2012. “Terrorism Defined". Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder.
10. Oliver,W. M., Marion, N. E, Hill, J. B., 2014. Introduction to Homeland Security. Burlington:Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
11. Saul, B., 2012. Terrorism. Oxford: Hart Publishing LTD.
12. Schmid, A. P., 2011. The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. New York: Routledge.
13. Smelser, N. J., Mitchell, F. (ed.), 2002. Terrorism: Perspectives from the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. Wilkins, B. T., 2003. Terrorism and Collective Responsibility. New York: Routledge.
