Reasons for Defining and Criminalizing Terrorism in International Law

2701 Words 11 Pages
Terrorism is focused on a one-sided belief that dictates massive destruction of institutions, foundations and national symbols. It represents a philosophy, which does not comply with common sense. Terrorism acts are a matter of individual psychology, relentless ideology, religious commitment, or political passion. The most devastating terrorism attack in the United States was on September 11, 2001. Other U S attacks were the Manhattan attack in 1997, the Anthrax attack in 2001, a prior World Trade Center attack in 1993, the Wall Street Bombing attack in 1920, and the Kalama City bombing in 1995 (Askshintala, 2013). Terrorism attacks have also taken place in Israel, Greece, Chechnya a border between Russia and European countries and …show more content…
Although the adoption of sectoral treaties, the term ‘terrorism’ continues to exhibit descriptive and an analytical force in international legal discussion, suggesting that it captures a concept beyond the mere specific physical acts comprising terrorist acts. In particular, the international community has expressed its disapproval of ‘terrorism’ on a number of grounds since the early 1970s. These include that terrorism is a serious human rights violation, that terrorism undermines democratic governance, or at a minimum undermines the State and peaceful political processes and that terrorism threatens international peace and security. Each of these grounds is considered in turn as a basis for supporting international criminalization of terrorism. Ben Saul a professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow has identified three reasons for defining and criminalizing terrorism. The three reasons are (1) individual human rights (Saul, 2014), (2) the State and the political process but not exclusively democracy (Saul, 2014) and (3) international peace and security (Saul, 2014). The idea of terrorism as a particularly serious human rights violation does not constitute a compelling reason

Related Documents