Definition of Terrorism and Self-Determination

It is believed that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and statehood in public international law, though it remains a subject of debate in international bodies. International doctrine has been developed in both cases.

What is the legal link between terrorism and the right of self-determination of peoples? How are acts of terrorism and the right of self-determination linked? According to discussions by the UN’s Sixth Committee on October 7, 2005, the right of self-determination of peoples could not in any way be called terrorism. The definition of terrorism in public international law can then advance the international legal combat of terrorism, because an international legal definition of terrorism will precisely indicate which terrorist acts must be combated in order to stop any international recognition of these terrorist acts after several years. It will also encourage the combat of the causes of terrorism. The following paragraphs will indicate how international definitions of terrorism and national legal practice against terrorism differ. We find that in the international legal debates on the definition of terrorism, the following considerations do not always result in an agreed upon definition of terrorism.

International Organizations

The UN has thus far adopted 13 international conventions used for the combat of terrorism. Among these conventions are those against the taking of hostages in civil aviation and the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. The international criminal acts are then well described, but these criminal acts are not entitled “terrorist.” A definition of terrorism has been avoided because the acts are considered criminal, but the reasons for which the criminal acts have been committed are not considered criminal.

The Czech Republic stated in the 2001 General Assembly (GA) of the UN that the General Assembly could make an enormous contribution if it provided a general definition of terrorism, as this was a missing element in the international legal and political framework. At the General Assembly, Jordan clearly differentiated between the right of self-determination of people and the “indiscriminate slaughter of civilians” threatening the right of self-determination and international peace. The Czech Republic seemed to believe that when terrorism was defined, the international combat of terrorism was likely to be more successful with abuses of this combat prevented.

Profound differences of opinion among the member states hampered the UN’s anti-terrorism efforts and created tensions among the five permanent member states of the Security Council. Though in the General Assembly no majority of member states agreed on a definition of terrorism, all member states agreed that terrorism was contrary to international peace and security. No legal justification of terrorism was approved, although some States like Libya made a difference between terrorism and the “struggle by prosecuted groups.” Such a “struggle” could be seen as an execution of the right of self-determination of people.

On October 7th, 2004, after the taking of hostages and subsequent murders in a Russian school, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1566, which for the first and last time has given a long definition of terrorism. Under this definition there was no justification given for not only the criminal acts of terrorism, but also the terrorist motivation for political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, or religious reasons.

The Security Council has condemned all acts of terrorism, irrespective of their motivation. It has reaffirmed the imperative to combat terrorism by all means available in all of its forms and manifestations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law.

In 2001, the General Assembly heard calls from several member states for a definition of terrorism. The high-level panel of the General Assembly stated in its report of December 2nd, 2004 that there was a lack of agreement on a clear and well known definition of terrorism, which undermines the normative regulatory and moral stance against terrorism. One of the obstacles to combat terrorism has been the inability of states to agree on a definition of terrorism. The Security Council did agree on a definition, but there was no majority of member states within the General Assembly that agreed on a definition of terrorism. The Security Council adopted the definition of terrorism only in 2004. However, according to the Security Council, terrorism can lead to the breach of the peace.

In the sixth committee of the General Assembly in 2005, several member states stated that they had to come to a definition of terrorism, but no final definition was achieved. Ten states, including Iceland, Kuwait, and Japan, insisted that without a definition of terrorism, nations could not unite against it. No link was accepted between the right of self-determination, the use of religion or an ideological justification, and terrorism. Poverty and youth unemployment were cited as root societal causes that turned people to terrorism. In the end, the sixth committee did not come up with a proposal for the definition of terrorism.