The issue of defining terrorism

Alternatively, one could concede the innocence of the victims and argue that attacks on them are nevertheless justified, either by their consequences on balance, or by some deontological considerations.

When used by others, it conveyed a strong condemnation of the practice. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of what one considers an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children.

Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within the meaning of the definition contained in article 1, the following: Obviously, the moral assessment of the two types of terrorism is going to be significantly different Meggle Marshall European Center for Security Studiesunderlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism: Terrorists not only, as a matter of fact, fail to discharge this burden; Fotion argues that, with regard to terrorism that victimizes innocent people, it cannot be discharged.

That applies to the case of terrorism too. There is a much more damaging objection. But for the most part Fotion discusses the issue of means.

On the other hand, terrorism employed in conjunction with guerrilla warfare in a protracted war of liberation may well prove useful and therefore also justified, as it did in Algeria and South Vietnam. Ethical investigation is not preempted: Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism.

Definitions of terrorism are irrelevant in this situation. That kind of terrorism may sometimes be justified, whereas terrorism that targets innocent people never is.

A Philosophical Investigation, Cambridge: The University of Michigan Press. This Convention does not address, nor can it be interpreted as addressing, in any way, the issue of the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by States. Academic Research Researchers and academic students of terrorism desire the intellectual discipline of a definition to enable focussing on a specified topic.

Islamic countries would accept no definition that allowed national liberation movements in the Middle East and Kashmir to be portrayed as terrorist, whereas Western countries would accept no definition that allowed for state agencies to be guilty of terrorism.

All others are noncombatants, and enjoy immunity from such violence Coady Terrorism, War, and Justice. We should insist on viewing their actions as terrorist, although they reject this description. Shock and Awe" as a subcategory of "rapid dominance" is the name given to massive intervention designed to strike terror into the minds of the enemy.

Govier, Trudy,A Delicate Balance: The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention. When that is taken into account, the conclusion may rather be that even in extremis, if terrorism is to be justified, the reasons for believing that it will work and that nothing else will must be very strong indeed.

In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common citizens. But its advocates claim that in some circumstances a limited use of terrorism is the only way of bringing about a society where human rights of all will be respected.

Ethics and Liberal Democracy, Oxford:Terrorism still eludes definition at the United Nations. This week’s discussions about such a definition at the UN General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee appear to be near failure.

Analysis: There are presently 12 international conventions addressing various elements of terrorism, yet a comprehensive convention on terrorism, which includes a. Most researchers tend to believe that an objective and internationally accepted definition of terrorism can never be agreed upon; after all, they say, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The question of who is a terrorist, according to this school of thought, depends entirely on the subjective outlook of the definer.

This article argues. Some object to defining “terrorism” as violence against non-combatants or innocent persons. They argue that doing so runs together the question of the nature of terrorism and that of its moral status, and begs the moral issue by making terrorism unjustified by definition.

We should rather keep these questions separate, and take care not to. Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, The "Reign of Terror" is usually regarded as an issue of etymology. The term terrorism has generally been used to describe violence by non-state actors rather than government violence since the.

Defining the Issue Terrorism is translated to mean ‘army in the shadows’ and is defined as the threat or use of violence to win certain rewards or goals (, ). The earliest known Terrorist organization similar to those of today was the Zealots of Judea, formed when fanatics of the Jewish faith revolted against the of the.

That word — terrorism — got a lot of people riled up. — Leah Sottile, Longreads, "Bundyville Chapter One: A War in the Desert," 15 May Clearly visible on the Fullback is a Kh missile anti-ship missile, a strange weapon for Russian forces in Syria to fight terrorism to be equipped with.

The issue of defining terrorism
Rated 4/5 based on 11 review