Concept of Terrorism: Some Definitional Crises

Abstract

In the modern political usage, 'terrorism' has become the most controversial term to be defined objectively. This controversy is magnified when it comes to the notion of 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In this process, another difficulty is which forms of violence should be recognized as legitimate and which should not. In other words, the subjectivity of the term has not only exacerbated the threat, but also made it more sinister than it has been in the past. In the presence of such emerging threats, it is necessary to evolve a working definition with little disagreement. Although it is extremely difficult for the nation states to compromise over their national interests, still there must be some starting point because there is almost a consensus among the states that the modern transnational religious terrorism is a major threat to world peace and stability. Undoubtedly, academics’ works on terrorism have helped understand the problem, but their contributions have not even materialized to create a consensus among the political circles. The academics themselves are divided on the very particulars of the concept. In my opinion, the distinction between ‘freedom fighting’ and ‘terrorism’ must be made on the grounds of the legitimacy of the movement for independence, recognized by the UN. Article 1(2) of the UN Charter recognizes the right of self-determination of the peoples. This article is an effort to highlight the complexities in defining terrorism, and to find out some ways to reach at least a partial consensus among states. The article is divided into four parts. The first part deals with the definitional problems as far as the term ‘terrorism’ is concerned. In the second part an attempt has been made to distinguish between ‘terrorism’ and ‘freedom fighting’. The third part focuses on the changing meaning and nature of terrorism over a period of time.