Introduction to International Laws and Terrorism - Essay Example

Introduction to International laws and terrorism

Terrorism is considered to be an act of employing intimidation and violence in the pursuit of politically related aims. According to Joseph Montville, the primary purpose of terrorism is to threaten and endanger the lives of individuals in various countries. In this case, an individual or a particular organization might opt to use this strategy to sabotage the success of the other parties. Terrorism is employed to torture an individual or a country psychological, cause deaths as well as economic challenges. Therefore, in order for terrorism to be effective, studies indicate that the act is well financed by terrorist and their plan is well laid down by some of the sophisticated terrorists across the globe. For instance, according to the article fighting to the end: The Pakistani’s army way War indicated that ‘most of the non-Muslim, as well as Muslim nations such as Nepal, the United States, Egypt the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, as well as United Arab Emirates, are considered to be sending their officers to Pakistan’s to receive military training.’ Therefore, this is considered to enhance their belief in the international law as well as terrorism and thus attaining more power on how to conduct terrorism across the globe (Fair). Therefore, the control of this act needs total support and collaboration from various governmental and non-governmental institutions across the world.

There are usually two kinds of terrorism that are the revolutionary terrorism and the state terrorism. The state terrorism is mainly the type of terrorism related to dictatorship. The dictators are, therefore, those people in power who use their positions to suppress other citizens. In this case, the dictators use the terror of repression to maintain their groups in the authority. However, the state terrorism mainly claims to be defensive, or a reply to the so-called subversive terrorism. Hence, they especially tend to do so that they can seek power even if they pretend to be using the legal democratic means. On the other hand, revolutionary terrorism is simply political terrorism. These were clearly understood when the European resistants were fighting the German forces of occupation during the Second World War. Hence, revolutionary terrorism is the kind of terrorism employed by colonized people such as North America against the colonizing powers. It is also practiced in sovereign states.

Democracy is, therefore, a manner in which a majority group of people can run an organization by implication of legal methods stated mainly in the constitution. Hence, the principle of self-determination and equal rights of citizens does not only concern Self-government or the right of all peoples that enables them to determine their operations freely without external interference their political status and to pursue their cultural, economic and social development. Moreover, it also includes the right of the people of a colony, self-determination or a non-self-governing territory to proclaim their independence. However, while it seems self-evident that self-determination is likely to be applicable in the burgeoning state, it may appear paradoxical for the same principle to apply within a sovereign state, hence, weakening the principle of sovereign equality of states. Therefore, leaders used the correct legal means of getting to power, and after that changing to being dictators so as to maintain or remain in the authority. By doing this, they went further and used methods such as terrorism to stop their opponents and running mates leading to massive loss o innocent people’s property and lives.

Therefore, I do agree with the information concerning Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Reason being suicide terrorism has been one major issue that is rising in the world though its explanations do not enable one to understand the reason why it is rising. For instance, Joseph Montville in his article on psychological roots of ethnic and sectarian terrorism, he stated that, ‘psychology of victimhood is considered to be a state of both individual as well as collective ethnic mind that is said to happen when traditional structures that caters for personal scene of security as well as self-worth through membership in a group are overpowered by aggressive as well as violent political outsiders (Volkan, Julius, and Montville). Moreover, religious fanaticism does not also explain the world suicide terrorism is growing. For instance, according to the article what the ISIS want by Graeme Wood; he indicated that ‘basing on Haykel statement, the ranks of the ISIS are deeply infused with religious vigor.’ However, it is seen that terrorist organizations are relying much on suicide attacks that have recently been employed by groups. For instance are the attacks that have been used by the Palestinian factions in their efforts and attempts to force Israel to abandon the West Bank and Gaza through liberations of Tigers of Tamil Eelam to compel Sri Lanka government so that it could accept an independent Tamil homeland.

However, as suicide attacks mounted onward, it has become increasingly evident that these initial explanations are inadequate to account for that whereby individuals become suicide terrorists and, more importantly, the reason why terrorist organizations are increasingly relying on this form of attack. Although religious motives may matter sometimes, modern suicide terrorism is not limited to Islamic Fundamentalism. Therefore, Islamic groups receive the most attention in Western media, but the world's leader in suicide terrorism is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LITE), a group who recruits members from the predominantly Hindu Tamil population in eastern and northern Sri Lanka and whose ideology has Marxist-Leninist elements. The LITE independently may account for around accounts for 75 of the 186 suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2001. More so, even among Islamic suicide bombings, groups with secular orientations account for about a third of these attacks.

Foreign intelligence and citizen rights are assured by the judiciary review as it was one of the methods that were used to imply justice in the society. For instance, immigrant rights were there in a state or country such as Srilanka and U.S whereby it said the people’s right towards protection against the terrorism-related activities that would threaten their lives (Mehta). Therefore, the court has on several occasions authorized and endorsed the idea prompted the idea of the UN, whose decision is having an authorizing effect. For instance, the Security Council adopted a resolution that would purportedly be used for the maintenance of international security and peace. Also, concerning a mandate authorization in such resolutions where the Secretary-General incurred financial obligations, these amounts must be presumed to Constitute to the people’s rights

The Court has also repeatedly found that it has a discretionary power to accept or refuse UN requests for the judiciary systems opinions. That was because the Court cannot issue opinions like the legal effect of the GA resolution is that of authorization. Regarding the rather categorical ‘request’ for an advisory opinion found both in the UN Charter in the 96th article practice shows that these resolutions are decisions. The Court has found some qualifications to its discretionary right, none of which alter this analysis. The Court has even given a broad scope to the authorizing effect, concluding that it must not be unduly restrained by the wording of the request or the circumstances surrounding its adoption. Hence, this has enabled the citizen’s rights to be protected.

There is a conflict between the two parties as an accurate and complete analysis of the international human rights commitments of states in the context of terrorist violence requires consideration of customary and conventional principles and rules of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The prosecuting terrorist was not to what was intended by the international rights. As a result, they worked against each other leading to massive destruction of property and people’s lives as well as the framework of international instruments developed specifically for the purpose of preventing, suppressing and eradicating terrorism. The section of this particular report provides a general overview of each of these regimes of international law.

The U.S attorney general was therefore alleged to prosecute a broad range of the terrorists as they aimed at destroying the people’s lives. Furthermore, according to Max Abrahams’s assertion concerning terrorist groups rarely transformed into “nonviolent political parties” is empirically weak. Jones and Libicki, therefore, found that the most common manner for terrorist groups to end was by joining the political process—either through a peace settlement with the government and abandonment of violence or “civic action” in the absence of an explicit agreement.9 Of 268 groups that have ended since 1968 without splintering, 114 (or 43 percent) did so by entering nonviolent politics in one way or another.10 Examples include the Farabundo Marti National Liberation, the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Front in Mozambican National Resistance, and the El Salvador.

Terrorism should be defined through legislative prescription this is because the definition can be read to include demonstrations and legitimate gatherings. For instance, for several years, groups of cyclists have taken to the streets in cities around the world in so-called ‘critical mass’ bike rides. Hence, the target of this the gatherings has been described as the ability to reclaim the streets. However, due to the sheer number of participants taking place on these rides, it can severely disrupt traffic and can be said to pose a danger to the safety and health of the cyclists as well as another road user including pedestrians (Wood). Therefore, Given that the aim of the rides is ideological, initially known to reclaim the streets, and that they also could be argued to be designed to intimidate a section of the public, they arguably fall within the definition of terrorism.