Define Terrorism And Just War

There are many differing definitions of terrorism. What is terrorism? How do we define it? Why is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? These are just a few of the questions that face the world on a daily basis. There are many challenges that face the international community when it comes to how to define terrorism and what it constitutes. This paper will explore the challenges facing scholars when it comes to labeling terror and discuss potential ways to properly define it.

Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define and is often used to mean different things by pundits, politicians and the media. The problem of defining terrorism has “hindered analysis since the inception of studies in the early 1970s”. It is therefore difficult to decide whether a particular organisation is considered a terrorist group. A widely used definition by Bruce Hoffman, a political analyst in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism, states that terrorism is violence or the threat of violence, against non combatants or civilians, usually motivated by political, religious or ideological beliefs.

Many agree that terrorism is a phenomenon that is hard to put a label on. Historically considered a crime it has deservingly become treated as an act of war in the post 9/11 world. Modern-day terrorism has blurred the boundaries between a crime and war and reshaped the traditional understanding of the concept of war itself turning the entire globe into a battlefield. Contemporary war is much less a confrontation of state armies fighting for territorial control, but terrorist, guerilla and paramilitary groups fighting military superpowers. Without much for the resources, terrorists were able to merge with the global civil society and threaten the state and international security by endangering and spreading the fear in the civilian population.

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…

International terrorism aspires to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government and transcend national

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

The Central Intelligence Agency defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (CIA). This term was specifically created to differentiate terrorism between other acts of violence. These doings of terrorism are not just any act but are specific acts of violence. A dominant reason behind terrorism tends to fall upon religious beliefs and culture ties.

While the General Assembly resolution 49/60 gives a very broad and dictionary-esque definition, currently, there is no clear, law abiding definition of ‘terrorism;’ as stated in the report of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change:

There has been difficulty in defining terrorism in international law due to "changes in terrorist methodology and the lack of any precise definition of the term 'terrorism’” . The United Nations General Assembly also condemned acts of terrorism without defining it. Therefore a functional approach had been adopted through treaties dealing with the forms of terrorism considered to be unacceptable. Although, it is agreed upon in international law that terrorism is unlawful, it is not addressed whether it is a casus belli, an unlawful act that justifies a military response. There is a general duty for states to act thoroughly to avert the performance of violent and terrorist acts within its territory. However, this duty is breached when governments support terrorism or fails to apprehend terrorists.

Dailymail.co.uk says that over 32,000 people died in 2014 alone (Dailymail 1). Terrorism can be interpreted many different ways. From the terrorist’s standpoint, terrorism is a helpful tool used to promote their way of life and to keep their people in line. From a pacifist’s point of view, terrorism is a dangerous thing, but should be left alone unless it is targeted toward them. From an activist’s point of view, terrorism is too dangerous to be left alone and must stop before it spreads. No matter what point of view it is being seen at, terrorism is dangerous and has ended the lives of too many citizens and soldiers.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism as, “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal” (Terrorism, n.d.). The various definitions of terrorism are typically close in comparison but can carry a slightly different tone when used by a government for purposes of the law.

Although wars cause much devastation in countries even in the world, the Just War Theory may be applied to determine whether or not a war was justly distributed through particular principles and conditions. Led by the United States in Iraq, the Gulf War caused much controversy and tension between nations. Not only did it left a scar on foreign policy but the citizens of Iraq were greatly affected. Through Thomas Aquinas Just War Theory principles and Catholic teachings, the Iraq war can be proven to be an unjust conflict due to a large number of casualties, expensive costs, and unsuccessful turnabout.

The concept of “just war” is built on the assumption that war is bad and should be avoided, but there also may be times when warfare is justified. Just war theories usually address two main areas: First, under what conditions is it right to go to war? Second, is there a moral way to conduct a war?

So what is the definition of terrorism, they are many varied descriptions and ideas of what people have labelled as terrorism, for

According to Aghedo & Osumah (2012) the term national security has been boarded to encompass both state and human security. While state security is analogous to the dominant notion of national security, human security, on the other hand, emphasizes the preservation of the well-being of persons, including the protection of their socioeconomic, political and environmental rights. The notion of security is reorganized as a social construct, imbued with human faces (p.855). Although Boko Haram is categorized as a terrorist organization, it remains difficult to define terrorism itself under international law. With the rising of nationalist movements after the World War II in the old empires of the European powers, modern terrorism has accelerated and generated publicity for its causes and influenced global policy. While no one has yet agreed upon a definition of terrorism, many see in terrorism an effective means of transforming local conflicts into international