AUTHOR
Yonah Alexander
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION:
Director, International Center for Terrorism Studies
TITLE
Terrorism: A Definitional Focus
SOURCE
Excerpt from Terrorism and the Law, by Yonah Alexander and Edgar H. Brenner, Editors.
Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2001.
TEXT
Many governments have failed to appreciate the extent and implications of the terrorist threat to modern societies. As a result, a large number of countries, including Western democracies, have not developed strong commitments to deal effectively with the challenge. A major reason for this failure is the definitional and moral confusion over what constitutes terrorism.**RF 1** Every sovereign state reserves to itself the political and legal authority to define terrorism in the context of domestic and foreign affairs. And yet, some governments speak with a bewildering variety of voices on the subject of terrorism. The United States is a case in point.
In the U.S. federal system, each state determines what constitutes an offense under its criminal or penal code. States have therefore defined terrorism generically as a crime, thus ending the true need for the use of specific statutes covering other selected criminal acts that are identified as terrorism. For instance, the Arkansas Criminal Code states that "a person commits the offense of terroristic threatening if with the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person." **RF 2**
In general, state laws appear under nine separate headings, including civil defense (interstate compacts and state emergency management plans), antiterrorism provisions, destructive devices, terrorist threats, enhanced criminal penalties, victim compensation, street terrorism, ecological terrorism, and taxes.**RF 3** Regarding the first category, as an example, the authority of states to enter into interstate compacts of any kind is governed by Article I, Section IV, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which requires congressional authorization.
Similarly, the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, **RF 4** as amended, authorize interstate compacts dealing with civil defense against various emergencies, including terrorist incidents.**RF 5**
In the legislative branch, it is also evident that no consensus has been reached. Indeed, over the past 30 years, the U.S. Congress has held numerous hearings, considered bills, adopted resolutions, and passed laws on terrorism. **RF 6** Nevertheless, a comprehensive working definition that can address the different forms of terrorist attacks has not emerged from Congress thus far. Similarly, the executive branch, partly as a result of the very nature of its jurisdictional diversities, has not developed a coordinated position on the meaning of the term. Since the 1980s, for instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has defined terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives." **RF 7**
In recent years, however, the Department of State has adopted a definition, which is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), stating that "the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." **RF 8** Moreover, "the term ‘international terrorism’ means terrorism involving citizens of the territory of more than one country" **RF 9** and "the term ‘terrorist group’ means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice international terrorism." **RF 10**
Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, adopted an evolutionary definitional process of the meaning of what terrorism is. In 1996, for instance, Lord Lloyd’s inquiry into the future of antiterrorism legislation proposed, at the time, the following definition of terrorism: "the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public, in order to promote political, social, or ideological objectives." **RF 11** Under the 1999 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the British government is proceeding with an even broader definition of terrorism that would include expressions of single-issue extremism by groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front. The latest definition of terrorism by the United Kingdom is as follows: "the use or threat, for purposes of advancing a political, religious, or ideological course of action which involves serious violence against any person or property, endangers the life of any person, or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public."**RF 12**
Subsequently, the 1999 Prevention of Terrorism Bill completed its committee stages, proceeded to the House of Lords, and then became the Terrorism Act 2000. It went through a three-stage process. The major one being the the Terrorism Act 2000 (Commencement No 3) Order (SI 2000/421) which brought into force all the remaining provisions of the 2000 Act on 19 February 2001. The only provision not yet brought into force is s.100 providing for a code of practice on silent video recordings of interviews conducted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.(A code had been made under s.53 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and is apparently being kept in place).
The definition of ‘terrorism’ is set out in s.1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is a two part definition. Section 1(1)provides that ‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action where the action falls within subsection (2) (i.e. violence, serious damage, endangering life etc.)and "(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."
Section 1(1)(b) and (c) are therefore concerned with the purposes for which the action is taken or threatened. The substance of the relevant ‘action’ is defined in section 1(2, as follows;
"(2)Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person,(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety f the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seiously to interfere with or disrupt any electronic system."
Section 1(2)(e) is no doubt designed t be up-to-date so as to cope with targeted hacking, but it could produce some odd results. If, for example, Greenpeace were to threaten to disrupt a government computer system (e.g. for dealing with oil revenues in Iraq) in order to put pressure on that Government over its treatment of the Kurds, it could be committing an act of terrorism for the purposes of the Terrorism Act. This example shows just how widely the concept of ‘terrorism’ is drawn.
Thus, definitional approaches of the United States and the United Kingdom reflect a divergence of national dispositions vis-à-vis terrorism. Similarly, international organizations, such as the United Nations, failed for decades to agree on a common universal definition. While both the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council repeatedly affirmed their determination to combat terrorism in all its forms "irrespective of motive, wherever and by whomever committed," **RF 13** the world body was reluctant for political reasons to define precisely the nature of the terrorism challenge.
At any rate, the most detailed latest effort by the United Nations to craft a definition occurred in December 1999 when the General Assembly adopted by consensus the text of a draft International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. It states that terrorism is
"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 circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature, that may be invoked to justify them." **RF 14**
In short, an analysis of various governmental and intergovernmental, as well as academic views on the subject indicates that there is no consensus of what terrorism is.**RF 15** Nevertheless, there seems to be an agreement related to its several components, such as the nature of the act (e.g., unlawful); perpetrators (e.g., individuals, groups, states); objectives (e.g., political); intended outcomes and motivations (e.g., fear and frustration); targets (e.g., victims); and methods (e.g., hostage taking).**RF 16**
On the basis of these elements, is it reasonable to adopt the following working definition: terrorism is defined as the calculated employment or the threat of violence by individuals, subnational groups, and state actors to attain political, social, and economic objectives in the violation of law, intended to create an overwhelming fear in a target area greater than the victims attacked or threatened.
REFERENCES
**RF 1** For sources on the definitional issues of terrorism as well as for literature on the general topic of terrorism, see, for instance, Yonah Alexander, ed., Terrorism: An International Resource File, 1986-1990 (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI, 1991).
**RF 2** Ark. Code Ann. Section 5-13-301.
**RF 3** The Ohio Code provides for tax abatements for certain victims of terrorism. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 5747.023
**RF 5** For details, see Yonah Alexander and Edgar H. Brenner eds., Legal Responses to Terrorism: U.S. State Legislation (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 2000).
**RF 6** A recent oversight hearing on terrorist threats to the United States was held by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, January 25, 2000, see News Advisory, January 24, 2000. For a bill initiated to establish a commission on aviation security and terrorism, seeking to investigate the destruction of Pan Am 103 on December 21, 1988 and KAL on August 31, 1983, see H.R. 2507 (101st Congress, 1st session, May 25, 1989).
**RF 7** U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Terrorism in the United States, 1988. (Terrorist Research and Analytical Center, Counterterrorism Section, Criminal Investigative Division, December 31, 1988), p. 34.
**RF 10** 22 USC § 2656; Cited in Yonah Alexander and Donald Musch, Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control, (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1999) Vol. 17, pp. 170-171.
**RF 11** See, Lord Lloyd, "Inquiry into Legislation Against Terrorism," House of Lords, March 1996; and Yonah Alexander and Michael Noone, Three Nations’ Response to Terrorism (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1997).
**RF 12** Quoted by Mark Matfield, "Terrorism Bill Passes Second Reading," in RDS Newsletter (January 2000), pp. 8-9. This quarterly also covers some of the latest activities of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). For views of the ALF, see, for example, its Frontline Information Service: hhtp://www.enviroweb.org/ALFIS/index2.shtml
**RF 13** UN Security Council Resolution 1269 (1999) at its 4053rd meeting, 19 October 1999.
**RF 14** UN General Assembly Resolution 54/109, 9 December 1999.
**RF 15** See, for example, Alex P. Schmid and Albert J. Jongman, Political Terrorism (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1988), pp. 1-39.
**RF 16** Ray S. Cline and Yonah Alexander developed these elements in an unclassified report prepared for the U.S. Army on State Sponsored Terrorism (1985), pp. 22-23.
EXCERPTED FROM:
Terrorism
and the Law, by Yonah Alexander and Edgar H. Brenner, Editors. Transnational
Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Copyright © 2001 by Transnational Publishers, Inc.
Published and distributed by Transnational Publishers, Inc.
410 Saw Mill River Road
Ardsley, NY 10502, USA
Phone: 914-693-5100
Fax: 914-693-4430
E-mail: info@transnationalpubs.com
The complete book, in print or e-book format, can be purchased from TerrorismBooks.com and is also available online through your TerrorismCentral Reference Library subscription.