As is true for definitions of war, definitions of “terrorism” abound, clash, and elude agreement.
In 2004, the U.N. Security Council defined terrorism as “criminal acts, including (those) against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or international organizations to do or to abstain from doing any act…”
The U.N. Ad Hoc Committee Negotiating Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Convention attempted to create a more precise definition of who is a terrorist and who is not. However, the effort ran into several obstacles—for example, how do you differentiate between terrorism and the “legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for national liberation and self-determination” (United Nations Ad Hoc Committee 2011)?
Moreover, should an official definition of terrorism include the concept of “state terrorism”? Can governments be terrorists?
This definition from the U.S. State Department specifically excludes the possibility of state terrorism: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Center for Defense Information 2003).
What do you think of this definition?
In an upcoming post, we will consider definitions of terrorism from ordinary people all over the world, and provide the answers to our earlier questions regarding definitions of war.
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology