Introduction
Currently quite a lot of scholars agree that terrorism constitutes a complex and complicated phenomenon that when one makes an attempt to construe its definition he is most likely to encounter a string of obstacles and implications on this academic and practical path. Today practitioners and scientists can fairly propose dozens and even hundreds of various definitions of terrorism, but they confuse other people and experts trying to perceive the main essence and nature of terrorism (Sorel, 2003; Ganor, 2002). Crafting a comprehensive definition of terrorism is of paramount significance to both science and practical settings of punishing those perpetuating such unlawful activities. The given conceptual uncertainty constitutes a stumbling block separating and substantiating the existence of two main theories of terrorism.
Confusion in Defining Terrorism
Very often confusing elements and characteristics used as components of the terrorism concept can be illustrated by attempts to categorize the wrongdoers into groups (individuals, organizations, states), emphasize the aims and motives of perpetrators (religious, ethnic, cultural), and highlight the results of the unlawful actions. What is more significant: notions of terrorism may carry international and national foundations and be dependent upon the will and objectives of the great powers on the international arena in different historical periods (Sorel, 2003).
Moreover, terrorism may not be also coherently distinguished from national revolutions and freedom movements against oppressive governments, economic, and social regimes. The researcher Ganor (2002) refers to repeated declarations and statements made by Arab politicians and leaders. In particular, the scholar cites the resolution of one of the Islamic summits held in 1980’s in Kuwait which reads that the summit members possess a clear awareness of the difference between terrorism and the “legitimate struggle of oppressed and subjugated nations against foreign occupation of any kind” (p. 292). When the issue concerns freedom movements and terrorism, it is determined that “freedom fighters” do not have the objective of assaulting and killing innocent people and civilians.
Along with the confusion relating to some erroneous similarities between terrorism and any types of freedom movements and revolutions, Ganor assumes that there additionally exist challenges demonstrated by fuzzy and blurring barriers between terrorism and various kinds of crimes laid down by national statutes, by necessity to separate terrorism from other types of “political violence”, to address whether terrorism constitutes a component or subgroup of coercion and influence, and finally, to hold whether terrorism could be justified at all and in which circumstances (p. 290).
What is essential in all this discussion on the obstacles and confusions in producing an exhaustive concept of terrorism is that both scholars – Ganor and Sorel, come to a conclusion that the definition of terrorism should be as simple as possible, containing predominantly three main elements: 1) the use of violence or a threat to resort to it; 2) terrorist’s target must be to pursue a political outcome (namely, to affect political leaders, get to the power. If there only a violence is evident, without any political objectives involved, it should merely be said about a criminal offence); 3) and the last element states that civilians should be the targets of terrorists.
Nevertheless, governmental and social misconceptions respecting the conceptual attitude toward terrorism continue to exist. For instance, Jonathan R. White (2012) provides several examples of real-world occurrences. In 2010, one of his colleagues participated in the American program launched in Jordan where he interacted with Jordanian law enforcement officials arguing Hezbollah organization was just lawful police opposing the Israel aggression.
Prevalent Schools of Thought on Terrorism
The academic literature and scientific environments of studies on terrorism have steadily seen a strong domination of two major schools of thought – “Orthodox/Mainstream approach” and “Critical Theorists” (Bayo, 2012; Bunyavejchewin, 2010). The Orthodox attitude has been fundamentally coined by Professor Bruce Hoffman, who has held numerous governmental positions and been awarded for excellent research and unique contribution in the field of terrorism studies. According to the sources, Hoffman carried out research on terrorism occurred in such countries as Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan etc. In 1998, the researcher released his famous book titled “Inside Terrorism” which saw a subsequent publication in 2006 and the next release of it is expected to come out in 2016 (Georgetown University, n.d.).
Bruce Hoffman is also famous for having crafted the distinctive concept of terrorism differing from the Critical Theorists’ assumptions. Pursuant to his definition, terrorism should be deemed to be the acts conducted by a “sub-national or non-state entity” (Bayo, 2012, p. 228). This is a feature residing in the premise of the Orthodox terrorism researchers contending that governments and states cannot be terrorists as they possess a monopolistic entitlement to use force (Bayo, 2012).
In the other opposite group of scholars are the “Critical Theorists” who do not associate themselves with state powers and institutions as the Orthodox scholars do. A distinctive feature of this intellectual community can be illustrated by their different approach to state terrorism actors and justifications of government violence (Bayo, 2012). The most acclaimed proponent of this theory – Richard Jackson (his well-known publication is “Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counterterrorism”), has repeatedly criticized the Orthodox researchers for their neglecting a consideration of state and state groups as terrorists (Jackson, 2008). Jackson claims that the Orthodox experts even obtain research grants from the governments with the aim of crafting arguments in favor of state counterterrorism measures (Schmid, 2011).
Conclusion
Within the framework of this study it has been demonstrated how crucial it is to coin the universally accepted definition of terrorism for both theoretical and practical legal purposes. Thus, Sorel and Ganor’s variant of defining terrorism may be an optimal option for both the Orthodox and Critical terrorism scholars since it does not seek to classify terrorism actors and their motives.
References
Bayo, O.A. (2012). Putting historical materialism into terrorism studies. International Journal of Current Research, 4. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1902536/PUTTING_HISTORICAL_MATERIALISM_INTO_TERRORISM_STUDIES
Bunyavejchewin, P. (2010, December). The orthodox and the critical approach toward terrorism: an overview. Retrieved from http://www.apu.ac.jp/rcaps/uploads/fckeditor/publications/workingPapers/RCAPS_WP10-3.pdf
Ganor, B. (2002). Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Police Practice and Research, 3. Retrieved from https://canvas.ewu.edu/files/23664953/download?download_frd=1&verifier=10FeI70LG7A1mUbsScscZBKLaoOoDrifmUA75MRb
Georgetown University. (n.d.). Bruce Hoffman. Retrieved from http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/brh6/
Jackson, R. (2008, April 8). Why we need critical terrorism studies. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2008/04/08/why-we-need-critical-terrorism-studies/
Schmid, A. P. (Eds.). (2011). The Routledge handbook of terrorism research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sorel, J. (2003). Some questions about the definition of terrorism and the fight against its financing. EJIL, 14. Retrieved from http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/14/2/420.pdf
White, J.R. (2012). Terrorism & homeland security. (7th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
