What is Terrorism in International law?

Do we have an international definition of terrorism? projects aimed at instituting the general criminalization of International Terrorism have always existed. The objectives are, on the one hand, to typify conduct not present in any of the existing regulatory instruments, especially those influenced by technological development, such as Cyberterrorism, and, on the other hand, the adoption of a Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Terrorism, if the content is subject to consensus, a fact that would avoid the disadvantages of unequal treatment conferred by the various treaty regimes in force. Such projects that aim to achieve the criminalization of International Terrorism worldwide have developed in two ways. The first began in the 1990s, when attempts were made to include terrorism in the list of crimes over which the International Criminal Court (ICC) could exercise jurisdiction.

The second was the elaboration of a General Convention on International Terrorism within the scope of the United Nations (UN). None of these approaches, to date, have been successful. As imagined, the States exerted strong influences in these processes, as it is their willingness to reach a consensus on the definition of Terrorism and the consequent criminal provision in some international treaty. Even after September 11, 2001, when the discussion resurfaced, countries, especially the United States of America, wanted to ensure that the counter-terrorist response was solely their choice, so they not only denied international jurisdiction for such facts, but also extrapolated the pillars of international human rights law and the rule of law into the most draconian counterterrorism measures of the 21st century.

If terrorist agents had been criminally prosecuted by an international court, perhaps so many atrocities would have been avoided. The term “Terrorism” is confusing, dangerous and, at the same time, indispensable. Confusing because it has many different meanings to different interpreters, and time has changed its scope of meaning over the years. Dangerous because it easily becomes an object of propaganda, in the Anglo-Saxon sense of persuasive promotion of disinformation, as well as a means of avoiding delving deeper into the causes and forms of political violence. Indispensable, after all, because it is a real, current and recurring phenomenon that threatens the pillars of contemporary society. The problem with defining 'terrorism' is similar to defining many other abstract political terms, such as 'imperialism' and 'war'.

There is often a genuine wide-ranging debate as to whether certain acts or types of action deserve to be included in the category. The UN General Assembly, in resolution 42/159 of 1989, condemns international terrorism, highlighting the relevant task of the international community in establishing a definition of terrorism: “the effectiveness of the fight against international terrorism can be increased by the establishment of a definition of terrorism”. universally accepted international”. Terror was a term historically used to designate the behavior of the State, meaning inspiration to fear, death, frighten, instill fear, means of combat, territorial possession, among other related meanings. The turning point of this conceptualization was the 1880 attacks in Tsarist Russia, when non-state actors assassinated Tsar Alexander II, and later proclaimed themselves nihilists and anarchists, permeating all of Europe.

In this way, conducts practiced only by the State were no longer considered terrorists, but also those against the State itself. Between 1870 and 1920, the word Terrorism evolved as never seen before, becoming a set of acts of violence, whether attacks or kidnappings, committed by an organization that seeks to create a climate of insecurity and blackmail a government or express hatred for a system. However, it was not until the 3rd Conference for the Unification of Criminal Law in 1930, in Brussels, that a definition of Terrorism was proposed at the international level.

The political and social motives behind violent acts were taken into account, as well as the risk of producing common danger: The international use of means capable of producing a common danger that represents an act of terrorism on the part of anyone making use of crimes against private or state property for the purpose of expressing or executing political-social ideas. It can be seen, however, that until the narrated moment, Terrorism was used for internal political manifestations, rarely including some degree of foreignness, such as the nationality of the agents or planning of attacks in one country, for later execution in another.

 In the interwar period, the Academy tried to coin definitions for terrorism, so to differentiate this phenomenon from acts of war. Antoine Sottile, in 1938, was teaching the Summer Course at the Academy of International Law in The Hague when he proposed that terrorism should be understood as “a criminal act carried out through terror, violence or great intimidation, with a view to achieving a specific objective”. It was at this time that minds were opened to the internationalization of terrorist activity: international aspects were no longer seen as mere methods of action, but as inherent to political provocations and acts of violence themselves.

The first document that predicted terrorism as an international crime was the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which did not enter into force as only India ratified the agreement. According to article 1.2 of the document, acts of Terrorism are “criminal acts directed against a State whose objective or nature is to provoke a state of terror in certain personalities, in groups of people, or in the general public”. Note that this is not a definition of Terrorism, but acts of Terrorism, listed later in the Convention as: 1. International facts that aim to affect life, bodily integrity, health or the freedom of: a) Heads of State, b) spouses of the persons listed above, so persons exercising the prerogatives of Head of State, c) persons in charge of public functions or who occupy public positions when the fact is practiced against them due to the functions or positions, they exercise.

The international act that consists in destroying or causing damage to public property or intended for public purposes that belong to another High Contracting Party or that are subject to its authority. As if the wide diversified range of definitions of the terrorist phenomenon were not enough, whether from doctrine, legislators, the international community, jurisprudence, politics or the social sciences, it is also worth remembering that what some consider terrorism, others may see as an act heroic fight for freedom, as stated in the aphorism “one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter”.

Indeed, history shows that for decades national liberation movements, guerrillas, demonstrations and revolutions were qualified as terrorism. According to the United Nations, Terrorism is, by nature, international, as the command and control of terrorist groups, recruitment, training, operations and targets may all be located in different countries. Thus, counterterrorist measures will not be as effective unless all nations cooperate and agree in choosing common characteristics of terrorist groups and their actions. Agreement on a common definition would be a step forward towards universal cooperation in the prevention of terrorism.

The UN unsuccessfully tried to propose a universal agreement after the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, but some nations, notably in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, did not agree to label groups sympathetic to their ideals as terrorists. The most used definition of Terrorism today, unfortunately, is the US Department of Defense's 2010 definition, which is: “the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies”. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political or other ideological convictions and committed to the pursuit of generally political goals. Among the reflections of a watertight definition of “Terrorism”, there are pitfalls regarding the practical use of the term.

 Adam Roberts warns of the stereotyping of “Terrorism” to activities or movements in which there is a clear distinction of behavior, such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, which, between 1987 and 1988, labeled the African National Congress, from South Africa, as terrorist: “a superficial and silly categorization, easily dismantled with the emergence of Nelson Mandela as Chief Executive” As you can see, there is no international definition of terrorism. There is great juridical-political insecurity in repeatedly using the term “terrorist” to describe a class of adversaries, camouflaging eventual moral, political and economic bases, and often even hiding the fact that the opponents of these groups also make use of terror.