By Sinan FIDANCI printable version send your friend

As far as international law is concerned, the term of ‘terrorism’ is not a new phenomenon since the people of the world have always been threatened and suffered various patterns of terrorism. Notably, the UN Security Council makes clear that ‘the act of international terrorism constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century’[1]. However, despite the fact that the political and criminal effects of ‘terrorism’ are frequently and extensively discussed in everyday life, no single universal definition of it has ever been adopted under international law[2]. Nevertheless, the recent developments, such as the terror attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, in the area of international law suggest that making a clear definition of this concept is a necessary prerequisite for mobilizing international support against terrorism and essential to respond to the terrorist acts in an effective way. 
 
The 1937 League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism[3] was the first international attempt for the codification of the single definition of this concept. Under Article 1 (2) of the Convention, ‘terrorism’ was defined as ‘… criminal acts directed against State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons, or groups of persons or the general public’. However, the definition does not exist and the Convention is not part of international law today because it was never entered into force for the failure of the ratification process. 
 
At this point, it is important to emphasise that making a single universal definition of terrorism under international law is extremely difficult since there is always a possibility for the actions of a person or group are described as terrorism (criminal acts) by one side, while the same actions are called as the movement for freedom (political acts) by the other side. For instance, The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other groups fighting against Israel in order to set up an independent state for their people are terrorist groups for Israel, but liberation movements for Muslims and, in particular, for Arabs; the Kashmiri resistance groups have always been described as terrorists by India, however, they have always been credited as liberation fighters among the Pakistanis; the Afghani Mujahedeen were freedom fighters for the West but a bunch of terrorist criminals for the Soviet Union during the Cold War period. From this point of view, it is obvious that the policy
of double standards continues while the UN is still unable to arrive at a definition of terrorism. 
 
Since 1960s, the practices of the United Nations suggest that despite the failure of a single universal definition of terrorism, there is, at least, a consensus among the international community that terrorism cannot be effectively addressed without international co-operation. In 1972, the United Nations adopted a draft resolution on terrorism, which led to the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism[4]. It is important to indicate that the most fundamental task of the Committee was to produce an operative definition of terrorism. However, at the end of the consultation processes, the Committee did not reach an agreement on the issue as to whether a definition of terrorism was either necessary or desirable[5]. From this point of view, according to the Soviet Union delegation, for example, "it is unacceptable to give a broad interpretation to the term ‘international terrorism’ and to extend it to cover national liberation movements or acts committed in resisting an aggressor in occupied territories”[6]. In spite of a further attempt made by the Ad Hoc Committee in March 1977, in order to re-examine the possibility of finding a definition of terrorism, once again, no consensus was reached on a generally acceptable definition of terrorism. Due to the lack of co-operation towards the definition of this concept the Committee was dissolved in December 1977. 

In addition, in 1996, another Ad Hoc Committee on terrorism was established by the UN General Assembly in order to "elaborate a comprehensive convention on international terrorism…developing a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism”[7]. Further, it is important to indicate that one of the proposed definitions of terrorism was drawn by the UN General Assembly 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, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them"[8]. 
 
The President of the UN General Assembly stated that the "primary task facing the international community at present is to ensure that an effective legal framework for the prevention and elimination of international terrorism is in palace”[9]. Following the statement, a draft resolution, in which all acts, methods and practices of terrorism were considered as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and whomsoever committed, was approved by the Legal Committee of the General Assembly on 21 November 2001[10]. However, notably, despite these encouraging attempts, up until now the member states cannot agree on as to whether what, exactly, constitutes terrorism. 
 
In September 2000, the UN General Assembly began to take into consideration the Indian Draft of a comprehensive convention on terrorism[11]. In January 2001, General Assembly Resolution 55/158 reminded member states to remain committed to drafting the convention, work which is still continuing. However, it is noteworthy to indicate that the adoption of this comprehensive convention has not concluded yet due to the opposition of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC is loath to accept the articles of this convention dealing with the definition of terrorism and claiming for liberation movements have to be excluded from the definition of terrorist action.
 
The lack of a single definition of terrorism has resulted in the international law choosing various forms of counter-measures against the certain acts of terrorism under different international conventions since 1963 and to introduce measures to make sure international co-operation to investigate, combat and eliminate terrorist incidents in certain situations[12]. Therefore, the major anti-terrorism conventions are drafted within the framework of the UN and ratified by many states. Accordingly, at present, there are 12 international conventions addressing terrorism and related activities, each covering a specific type of criminal activities, including seizure of airplanes, political assassination, the use of explosives, hostage-taking, nuclear terrorism and assorted bombing etc.[13] 
 
It is obvious that all these conventions require contracting states to introduce appropriate national legislations in their own jurisdiction in order to punish the specific crimes mentioned by each convention. Regrettably, implementation of these conventions has not been easy and, more importantly, no operational mechanism has been established to evaluate measures undertaken by the states parties. However, by way of resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001, it was decided by the UN Security Council that member states are under obligation to prevent the financing of terrorism and the sheltering of the performers. Under paragraph 6 of this resolution, it was decided that member states were obliged to report the concrete measures taken to implement their obligations within 90 days to a committee set up for this purpose. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasise that even if states parties are under obligations to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under a given convention or protocol, none of these conventions provides a clear definition of terrorism at all. 
 
Consequently, despite the absence of a single universal definition of terrorism it is important to indicate that three main elements seem to be required for the crime of international terrorism; (a) the acts must constitute a criminal offence under most national legal systems, such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, bombing; (b) they must be aimed at spreading terror by means of violent action directed to a State, the public, or particular groups of persons; (c) they must be politically, religiously, or ideologically motivated[14]. Lack of ability to agree upon an internationally recognised operative definition of this concept has prevented the emergence of an effective international counter-terrorism strategy among nations and seriously undermined international efforts towards finding a solution to this problem. There is no doubt that a general definition of terrorism is necessary in order for the international community to fight against terrorism in a precise way. However,
it should be borne in mind that even international definition or treaties alone cannot solve the problem since the state parties’ co-operations are extremely essential in order to eliminate the threat of terrorism and make the world a safer place.
 
Bibliography
----------

- Bantekas, L & Nash S (2003) International Criminal Law (2nd ed) Portland, Cavendish
 
- Cassese, A (2003) International Criminal Law Oxford, Oxford University Press
  
- Cassese, A (2001) "Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law” European Journal of International Law Vol.12 No.5
 
- Chaisaree, K. K (2002) International Criminal Law Oxford, Oxford University Press
 
- Greenwood, C (2002) "International Law and the ‘war against terrorism’” International Affairs 78; 2
 
- Haffrey, N (1998) "The UN and International Efforts to Deal with Terrorism” Pew Case Studies in International Affairs, Case 313
 
- Sorel, M. J (2003) "Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against Its Financing” European Journal of International Law Vol.14 No.2