The Issue Of International Law

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

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

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

The act of terrorism, an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, is most commonly seen targeting civilians but can also include damage to property or injury to specific individuals. These malicious acts are used to fulfil political, religious or ideological aims in attempt of intimidating the government or society. Terrorisms’ impact reflects on the government and society extracting various responses, both legal and non-legal. The effectiveness of these responses, aimed at obtaining equal justice against terrorism, tend to vary while considering the concepts of preventing terrorist attacks while not infringing on human rights and the resolution of the ‘war against terrorism’. The evident lack of consistency in these responses has been reflected

The French Revolution’s aftermath during the 18th century sparked a vicious campaign against nobles who were seen as enemies of the newly formed state. The post-revolutionary government because of their series of mass executions was referred to as terror. The terror concept differs from the modern use of “terrorism” because the perpetrators are not usually governments and are instead nonstate actors (Lacquer, 2001). The word terrorism can be like the word globalism because it can be difficult to define because of the diversity of its meanings among different individuals and different groups. The continual transformation of the contexts in which the term is used causes difficulty in forming a distinctive meaning, but does not make it impossible to study the phenomenon as a distinctive form of political violence. Terrorism may differ from media outlets, governments, cultures, scholars, and readers. Examining the usage of the term thorough-out history will be a useful way to come to a conclusion as to the true meaning and definition of the term. Even though examples of terrorism can go back several millennia, studying the history of it will make it seem considerably new at this time and

This chapter was all about State terrorism and the different subtypes and examples. State Terrorism can be describe as; when the government is committed to using violence and extreme threats against their own civilians to get them to comply with the same views as the government to the point of submission. A country can involve in state terrorism with the aim of protecting the safety of its borders, guarding sovereignty or to achieving some political goal. The chapter breaks down state terrorism into two categories: internal and external terrorism. The first being internal terrorism, which is when the act occurs as a result against a domestic order, challenge to mainstream values, or internal human rights violation etc. A State may engage in terror acts for a variety of reasons. The main reason behind most state terror acts is to protect the sovereignty of the country. The government safeguards the independence and security of the country. This responsibility

Basically, Ratner discusses how we have two challenges: how to make universal rules legitimate amongst a community of diverse nations and how to make these rules effective in the absence of a governing authority. He then goes on to explain how there are four fundamental shifts in these kinds of issues. New Forms, New Players: Rules of international law used to reside in treaties or customary law, but as new domains from the environment to the internet become appropriate for international regulation, states become unwilling to embrace strict rules. Soft law enables states to adjust to the regulation of new areas without fearing punishment upon failure to comply. New participants are making demands

The challenges experienced at the international level with regard to arriving at a consensus about the definition of terrorism are based on the fact that the term raises political and emotional tensions. However, the international community through the United Nations has embraced various sectorial conventions that describe and criminalize several types of terrorist activities. Moreover, the general assembly of the UN has spoken against terrorist activities through diverse political definitions of terrorism. They have been described as criminal activities geared or measured

In addition to the reasons provided by the authors, the prevalence of terrorism today can also be linked to globalization. As societies become interconnected, the greater the influence of powerful states will be. Civil wars are not new, however, intervention in these conflicts have become more common now than at any other point in history. With globalization, major powers now have a stake in the outcome of these civil wars. As such, they often try to intervene militarily with troops or arms. These organizations then respond using terrorism, insurgency, or guerilla warfare to discourage foreign intervention because they are unable to defeat the opposing force in a conventional war. The various successes of past groups serve to encourage these organizations and strengthen their belief that terrorism can be used to overthrow major powers. Irregular warfare may increasingly become a substitute for war, for radical organizations with limited resources who are fighting for influence. What is clear is that these are not temporary conditions. Conflict has been constant in history and as Colin Gray asserts, when there is an asymmetrical balance of power, groups will result to irregular forms of warfare to accomplish their political

The most destructive and destabilizing state crimes are wars of aggression. Under George Bush, neoconservatives ushered in a climate of unilateralism as well as militarism which stemmed from America’s lengthy experiences involving “open door” imperialism. State crimes are defined as criminal acts perpetrated by state representatives in an attempt to serve in their job’s capacity. However, some have promoted an expanded description of state crimes which includes behavior which violates international agreements and treaties. Non-mainstream theorists argue that UN sponsored international law often conceals the white, western, liberalist predominance instead of valid understandings of human nature. The current system has been criticised

There are many acts of violence committed around the world today. One common problem that arises from these issues and wars is the aftermath of sorting out who did what and where to discuss this information. Pierre Leval, who is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, wrote the article, “The Long Arm of International Law” (2011). Leval was born in New York and received his bachelor’s degree in 1959 from Harvard (2011). Shortly after, in 1963, he earned his first professional doctorate degree as a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School(2011). After his nomination by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Leval joined the court (2011). Prior to this, he served on the Southern District of New York, joining in 1997 after appointment from President Jimmy Carter (2011). On August 16, 2002, Leval assumed senior status (2011).

State-sponsored terrorism is controlled by state actors to achieve the goal of political gain. In such instances, “countries which perceive themselves as the victims” (Demir 47) of some global injustice support acts of violence to motivate change by fear. Terrorism itself poses an issue for the realist paradigm as its main actors are non-state. Though it is the response and decisions of state players that dictate the outcome on interactions between nations, non-state actors participate in the actual acts of terror. Non-state actors (NSA) are organizations, or individuals, that hold political influence, but have no standing as a country. Terrorist groups are a subset of NSA’s who use violence and scare tactics against non-combatant targets to bring about political manipulation. Even though the non-state actor carries out the attack, the state-centric approach emphasizes the dominant

In this essay I will highlight how Global Terrorist Organisations (GTOs) challenge the traditional concept of security by first introducing the following definitions; of “Traditional Security” within the International Relations discipline; the officially accepted and recognised Commonwealth of Australia’s definition of what are and what are not considered acts of Terrorism and how terrorist organisation are defined by the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code). This will in turn help to understand the background of how GTOs operate; their motives and the counter terrorist activities that are adopted to halt and reduce the dangerous impact these acts of terrorism can occur.

1. Laws of Peace – normal relations between states in the absence of war. 2. Laws of War – relations between hostile or belligerent states during wartime.