Definition of terrorism

What is terrorism? The conceptual literature on terrorism provides a deluge of definitions. Nonetheless, scholars agree the term terrorism should include at least two essential attributes: the use of violence and a political motive (Lake, 2002; Pape, 2003; Enders & Sandler, 2011). Controversy arises when we try to specify the perpetrators and targets of terrorism. Some researchers hold the actions of governments can be labeled “terrorism” (Nairn & James, 2005), yet conventional wisdom restricts the

1. Terrorism is a word that brings up many emotions, but no one agrees on a singular definition for it. Chernotsky and Hobbs, define terrorism as “The threat or use of violence to change an existing political order” (Chernotsky and Hobbs 2013: 107). The UN has a similar definition with, “acts of violence that targets civilians in the pursuit of political or ideological aims” (UN Factsheet No 32: 5-6). Both of these definitions agree that terror attacks target civilians with the goal of changing something

Terrorism is a word that can be defined in many different ways. Differences in the definition depend upon the entity defining the term, and many times the definition varies based upon who is victorious in a given conflict. Compare the simplistic definition of Walter Laqueur (1987, 1999), who defines terrorism as the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people, with the definition found in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f (d), which describes

Most of the countries around the world call the terrorism a common enemy, but there is not a common definition of terrorism. There is not any significant unified goal and objective among the states against them, but they have their collective and shared goals. They are against the peace, stability, and development and they want to kill, destroy and spread fear. They misuse and misinterprets any faith in their favor and they try to mix terrorism with the religious ideology. And they support each other

Defining Terrorism The United Nations does not have a standard definition of terrorism. In 1994, the UN General Assembly condemned terrorism, as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable…” Nearly a decade later, UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), defined terrorism as “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an

Introduction 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

In today’s world, terrorism is not an un-known word; terrorism can be tracked back to early recorded history. Nevertheless terrorism definition is universally hard to define (Brown, 2008). Every individual’s definition of terrorism is different some describe it as a strategy and tactic. Another will describe it as sacred obligation, some will say it’s a justified stand against domination. Obviously, it depends on whose point of view is being represented (Brown, 2008). However, Australian

unpredictably and the trauma of its aftermath, terrorism is the ultimate threat to a nation’s sense of security. It has the capacity to alter a nation’s psyche, to cause leaders to create and enforce a nation’s strictest laws, and to spawn debates over the measures needed to ensure peace. Governments frequently devise legislation to prevent terrorism, yet the question always remains: should citizens’ rights and freedoms be compromised to fight terrorism, and, if so, to what extent? Both India and Canada

forms of terrorism, but what exactly that means is still up for debate. Most states would probably be willing to extradite a “terrorist,” but not quite as willing to extradite a “freedom fighter.” The first step that is necessary to close this loophole is defining the concept of terrorism itself. The current usage of the term “terrorism” is politically contrived. The former U.S. Judge to the International Court of Justice, Richard Baxter, has shown the problem with the definition of terrorism: “[W]e