Safe Earth Secure Earth
Terrorism
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition.
A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls. " Such an understanding does leave open the option for some governments to be considered terrorist organizations as well.
Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament states that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination." For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers," "militants," etc.
In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.
There has been a dispute between states since the laws of war were first codified in 1899. The Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.
More recently the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, recognised in Article 1. Paragraph 4 "... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes..." contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant.[7] Hence depending on the perspective of the state a resistance movements may or may not be labelled terrorist group based on whether the members of a resistance movement are considered lawful or unlawful combatants and their right to resist occupation is recognized.[8] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
HOME
