Defining terrorism: no agreed international law definition

பயங்கரவாதத்தை வரையறுத்தல்: சர்வதேச சட்டத்தில் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்பட்ட வரையறை இல்லை

This dossier addresses the lack of a universal legal definition of terrorism, highlighting persistent disagreements and how the term is used in international and domestic contexts.

This dossier compiles evidence demonstrating the absence of an agreed international legal definition of 'terrorism.' The UN Ad Hoc Committee, established in 1996, has deliberated for decades without reaching consensus, primarily due to disputes over excluding national liberation movements and including state actors. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon's attempt to establish a customary international law definition of terrorism is largely considered an overreach by legal scholars. Instead, the international legal landscape is shaped by fragmented domestic statutes and UN Security Council resolutions, such as 1373 and 1566, which impose obligations on states without providing a binding, universal definition. The International Committee of the Red Cross stresses the distinction between anti-terrorism frameworks (peacetime law enforcement) and International Humanitarian Law (armed conflict), warning against the conflation of the two. The lack of a clear, universal definition has significant implications. It permits states to define terrorism broadly within their domestic laws, leading to the repression of political opposition, as documented by the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism. This ambiguity also impacts the characterisation of conflicts; for instance, the ICTY's Tadić test for non-international armed conflict can legally preclude a 'law enforcement against terrorism' frame for sustained violence.

Citations