Critique of the Definitions of Terrorism - Essay Example

Terrorism Introduction Nations spend millions of dollars on the maintenance of their security; this is majorly due to security challenges posed by terrorist threats both to the economic and social well-being of the country. The approaches used by terrorists in the implementation of terror have taken a dynamic twist owing to the improvement in technology; thus, terrorist apply the use of modern technology to a greater deal in the implementation of their acts. The formation of terrorist groups has been on the rise particularly among the Arab nations making understanding of terrorism to be one of the most crucial issues in the management of governments (Pilat, 2009). In an attempt to understand terrorism and integrate the protection against terrorism in the laws, different governments and agencies have come up with the definition of terrorism to help in designing intervention against the vise. This paper will analyze some of the definitions of terrorism and provide a critique to the definitions in an attempt to ensure the definitions are in conformity with the current socio-economic changes and the dynamics in technological advancements. Difficulty in arriving at a common definition of terrorism Even before the 9/11 attack, there had been debates concerning extremism, however, following the 9/11 attack, the aftermath propelled the definition of terrorism into the forefront of the contemporary consciousness. Nevertheless, despite the public spotlight on the actions of terrorists, there has not been a concrete and a universally accepted definition of terrorism, thus the definition of terrorism varies from one state to another and between different law enforcement agencies. In the current world, national security is of paramount importance; hence, the political and the legal systems need to have a universal way of definition of terrorism to help in designing effective counter-terrorism strategies. Due to lack of a universally accepted way of defining terrorism, the international community cannot strengthen their cooperation in the fight against the vise since different definitions results to different priorities in the fight against terrorism (Sandler, 2011). Terrorism can be viewed from three parameters; the cause, the means of attack and the perpetrators. Focusing on a single parameter is not adequate to the definition of terrorism since terrorism is multidimensional, fluid and complex. The diversity in the three parameters used in the definition of terrorism makes it difficult to formulate a universally accepted definition. Some of the reasons why the application of the three parameters has been difficult to make a universal definition of terrorism is the fact that the general meaning and application of the word “terrorism” has evolved over the past centuries. In the last two centuries, terrorism was considered state-sponsored, positive and politically motivated. The language surrounding terrorism plays a significant role in the diversity of the definition of the term. Acts that are labeled as terror vary considerably, with the term ideologically and politically loaded. A terrorist label is usually applied to an “opposition” due to its inherent negative connotation; hence, the term has been an umbrella for seemingly violent acts including rape and apartheid. Since there is no standard to curb the use of the word terrorism, there results a blurred line between terrorism and other forms of political and criminal violence, which makes a universal definition of the term to be difficult to come about (Meisels, 2009). Critique of the definitions of terrorism According to the Oxford dictionary, terrorism is defined as a system of terror against a government by intimidation as directed and executed as a party in power in France during the 1789-94 revolution. Additionally, the Oxford dictionary implies that terrorism is a policy intended to strike with terror against whom it is adopted and the use of intimidation (Moustakis, 2011). The dictionary definition of terrorism is of little help since rather than one learning the meaning of the term; it serves the reader with a historical account of what terrorism might be. Nevertheless, despite the success of the second definition of terrorism according to the dictionary through including the use of intimidation, the definition is still not satisfactory as intimidation can be of multivariate phenomenon that may not be terrorist instigated. According to the united nation general assembly resolution of 1996, terrorism is defined as “A criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes and are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them” (Meisels, 2009). The definition of terrorism according to the united nation appears weak, as it does not indicate the perpetrators of terrorism, which is a crucial element in the understanding of the term. According to the United States’ code, chapter 38, terrorism is defined as a premeditated and politically motivated violence against noncombatant by subnational groups or clandestine agents. This definition is not standard because terrorism is an act that can equally be sponsored by a government against another government. Additionally, the definition of terrorism, as provided by the United States code, implies that terrorism is exclusively politically motivated without consideration of other triggers of terrorism such as ideological differences, religion or race. The federal bureau of investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The FBI’s definition of terrorism stresses on the method other than the motivation of the acts since the department is categorically interested in understanding the methods to help in preventing terror attacks. The definition according to the FBI has been majorly adopted by various law enforcement agencies, but cannot be universally applied, as it does not stress on the three parameters used in the definition of terrorism with equal measure (Meisels, 2009). Conclusion It is hard to arrive at a common definition of terrorism due to the differences in objectives of various departments and agencies that fight terrorism. The FBI definition, for example, stresses on the method since the aim of the department is to understand and eliminate the methods used to perpetrate terrorism while the United nation’s definition stresses on the implications of terrorism. The differences in the ideological framework through which terrorism can be encounter is one of the major stumbling blocks towards coming up with a universally accepted definition of terrorism. References Meisels, T. (2009). Defining terrorism – a typology. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Moustakis, F. (2011). Dictionary of Terrorism. Defence Studies. Pilat, J. F. (2009). The causes of terrorism. Organisational Transformation and Social Change. Sandler, T. (2011). New frontiers of terrorism research: An introduction. Journal of Peace Research. Read More