“With guns you can kill terrorists, with

education you can kill terrorism.” –

Malala Yousafzai

Defining
International
Terrorism

Symbiosis College of Arts & Commerce

Priyamvad Rai – 3440 – TYBA (G)

 1

Introduction

In the last 20 years, the face of global politics has witnessed the rise of the
involvement of many non-state actors (N.S.A. henceforth) like pressure groups,
interest groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) etc. However, one
such N.S.A., terrorist organizations have played one of the most crucial roles in
forming international relations and foreign policies of various nations of the
world.
From the cold winds of the Himalayas bearing down on the Kashmir valley
where insurgency has disrupted the lives of the Indian people since the
independence of the nation, to the eastern Mediterranean in Syria, a nation
destroyed due to rebellion and terror acts. It is undeniable that we can no
longer ignore these terror outfits and their acts. In Europe, millions seek refuge
trying to escape the tyranny and oppression. So much so that it is now
affecting the demographic characteristic of Europe itself.
Therefore, it is imperative that we adopt a universal definition of international
terrorism which can enable the world to garner its strength and eliminate the
threat once and for all. There are multiple perspectives on this issue which
come into conflict while discussing the possible definition.
 2

Acts of Terror across the world (1970-2015) Source: UNSC

 3

What is International Terrorism?

Even though there is no universal definition of International terrorism. It

usually refers to terrorism that goes beyond national boundaries in terms of
the methods used, the people that are targeted or the places from which the
terrorists operate.
Ever since the rise of Al-Qaeda in the 1990s, international terrorism has been
used synonymously with Islamist Terrorism. Various terror outfits have been
involved in carrying out attacks on countries like the United States of America,
United Kingdom, India, Australia, New Zealand, Afghanistan and many more.
It has been attributed that International terrorism is any act of violence which
is against any State or government. However, under this definition how does
one differentiate terrorism from a rebellion or a freedom movement? E.g.
Bhagat Singh was labelled as a terrorist by the British Raj in India, whereas for
the Indian people he was a freedom fighter. The perspectives change and this
results in the difference of perception.
 4

Implications of the absence of a universal definition of

terrorism
The absence of a universal definition of terrorism can have wide ranging issues.
If the definition is not adopted, there can be misuse and massive politicization
of the term ‘terrorism’ to curb non-terrorism activities.
E.g. A peaceful protest by the citizens of a nation can be passed off as terrorism
and violent means like security forces opening fire on them can be justified by
the nation state.
Ambiguity in regional/state laws can grant government extra-constitutional or
anti-human right powers and be justified as means and necessities for
combating terrorism.
The lack of a common definition also prevents cooperation between
governments on the issue of terrorism. Shared intelligence and armed forces
are the key method for combating terrorism, without a definition such
practices cannot be enforced due to incongruence in the perception of what
terrorism constitutes.

In the United Nations

The ‘Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism’ is a treaty which

was proposed in the United Nations which aims to criminalize all forms of
international terrorism and deny these outfits, their financers and supporters’
access to funds and resources.
This treaty was introduced in the United Nations by India in 1996. However
even after 20 years there has been no consensus on the issue. The primary
conflict in the deadlock has been as aforementioned, the definition of
terrorism.
 5

How does this deadlock hamper the war on terrorism?

Due to a lack of consensus on what terrorism constitutes, countries with
differing political agendas never vote in favour of certain terror groups or
individuals. E.g. For a long time, India had been pushing for Masood Azhar to
be denoted as an international terrorist, however this vote was being blocked
by China’s veto. This allowed him to continue his operations freely without any
fear of repercussions.
If the war on terrorism must go on constructively, it is imperative that
countries resolve this conflict.

Proposed Definition
The treaty has the following definition of terrorism up for proposal
1. “Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention
if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
a. Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
b. Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of
public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation
system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
c. Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in
paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major
economic loss,
when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do
or abstain from doing any act."

Differing Perspectives

What are the different perspectives on the definition of terrorism? There are
approximately 260 definitions which have been adopted by various nations as
well as international organisations. Each definition is vastly different from the
 6

other, which is quite problematic when it comes to drawing consensus. Some

of these definitions are as follows.
1. United States of America: An effort to coerce the civilian population of the
United States, or to influence policy or affect the conduct of the US by
coercion. It is a violent or a dangerous act. (Source: OECD)
2. United Kingdom: Acts of person acting on behalf, or in connection with, any
organization which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing
or influencing, by force or violence, of her Majesty’s government in the
United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto. (Source:
OECD)
3. Switzerland: In pursuit of political, religious, ethnic, ideological or similar
purpose which may result in putting the public or any section of the public
in fear or influencing any government or governmental organization.
(Source: OECD)
4. Netherlands: Attacks or series of attacks likely to have been planned or
carried out with a view to serve certain political and/or religious and/or
ideological purposes. (Source: OECD)
5. Austria: To influence the government or put the public or any section of the
public in fear. (Source: OECD)
6. India: An act of terror includes intentional act of violence that causes death,
injury or property damage, induces fear, and is targeted against any group
of people identified by their political, philosophical, ideological, racial,
ethnic, religious or any other nature. (Source: Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India)
It must be noted that these are only six of the total 260 definitions. But they
highlight the difference in the perception of what terrorism constitutes.
 7

The way forward

As the deadlock between nations persists, it is essential that talks and

discussions take place to sort out differences. Without a healthy deliberation,
it is not possible for the idea of a common definition of terrorism to be
adopted.
Recently, India announced an annual global summit on terrorism. It aims to
bring together heads of states/governments of various countries across the
world and draw out solutions for combating terrorism. It is a welcome move,
especially by a country which has been facing the brunt of terrorism since its
independence. More talks and discussions will result in a higher chance for a
common definition to be adopted as differences will be sorted out.
At the level of the United Nations, it is necessary that reforms such as greater
representation of nations in the Security Council takes place. The power of the
P-5 to veto resolutions in the UNSC prevent any passing of a definition of
terrorism simply because one P-5 nation has a different perspective from the
majority and is dictating the course of an organization consisting of 193
members.
Spreading awareness about terrorism to countries which are not affected by it
gravely is also important. Most of the times, it is swing votes or fence sitters
which change the tide of a voting procedure. When citizens are informed and
aware, they can pressurise their respective governments to take a stance on
certain issues, like this.
 8

Bibliography
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-4/key-issues/defining-
terrorism.html
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/international-terrorism
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet32En.pdf