Terrorism; The Question of Definition
TERRORISM; THE QUESTION OF DEFINITION
'However certain the facts of any science may be and however just the ideas we may have formed of these facts, we can only communicate false impressions to others while we want words by which these may be properly expressed '
A. Lavoisier1
Introduction
Despite the events of 11 September and the ongoing ‘War on Terrorism’ there remains no agreed definition of terrorism. Academics, scientists, military experts, the media, governments and security experts all expound a plethora of definitions2. Some focus on the methods used, others on the organisations themselves, and others place the emphasis on motivations and characteristics of individual terror groups. However, despite an apparent world united front, with a few notable exceptions in Iran and Iraq, it would appear that an agreed definition is no closer. If the world is to continue to remain united in the war against terrorism then it must first know what enemy it is fighting against. If they do not know who their enemy is then victory may be impossible. So why does no clear definition of terrorism exist?
In their book Political Terrorism, Schmid and Jongman cite some 109 different definitions of terrorism, obtained primarily from academics in the field. This article will explore the definition of terrorism by discussing the often-quoted statement that "One man 's terrorist is another man 's freedom fighter" and the issues this raises; the differing cultural perspectives on terrorism and the rationale behind these differences; before finally arriving at a conclusion on how terrorism might best be defined.
The Difficulty in Defining Terrorism
One of biggest obstacles in the quest to define terrorism is the often-quoted statement, "One man 's terrorist is another man 's freedom fighter" as it places terrorism along side the struggle of nationalism and guerrilla fighters. This statement may well appear credible if considering groups such as the IRA3
'However certain the facts of any science may be and however just the ideas we may have formed of these facts, we can only communicate false impressions to others while we want words by which these may be properly expressed '
A. Lavoisier1
Introduction
Despite the events of 11 September and the ongoing ‘War on Terrorism’ there remains no agreed definition of terrorism. Academics, scientists, military experts, the media, governments and security experts all expound a plethora of definitions2. Some focus on the methods used, others on the organisations themselves, and others place the emphasis on motivations and characteristics of individual terror groups. However, despite an apparent world united front, with a few notable exceptions in Iran and Iraq, it would appear that an agreed definition is no closer. If the world is to continue to remain united in the war against terrorism then it must first know what enemy it is fighting against. If they do not know who their enemy is then victory may be impossible. So why does no clear definition of terrorism exist?
In their book Political Terrorism, Schmid and Jongman cite some 109 different definitions of terrorism, obtained primarily from academics in the field. This article will explore the definition of terrorism by discussing the often-quoted statement that "One man 's terrorist is another man 's freedom fighter" and the issues this raises; the differing cultural perspectives on terrorism and the rationale behind these differences; before finally arriving at a conclusion on how terrorism might best be defined.
The Difficulty in Defining Terrorism
One of biggest obstacles in the quest to define terrorism is the often-quoted statement, "One man 's terrorist is another man 's freedom fighter" as it places terrorism along side the struggle of nationalism and guerrilla fighters. This statement may well appear credible if considering groups such as the IRA3
Bibliography: 1. Chutterbuck, Richard (1994) Terrorism in Unstable World, (T.J. Press Padstow; Cornwal). 2. Freedman, Lawrence et al, (1986) Terrorism and International Order, (Routledge & Keegan Ltd, London) 3. Hoffman, Bruce, (1988), Inside Terrorism, (Columbian University Press). 4. Jenkins, Brian M., (1998), ‘Will Terrorist Go Nuclear? A Reappraisal’ in Harvey W. Kushner ed., The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium, (Sage Publishing, California). 5. Laqueur Walter, (1997), A History of Terrorism, (Little Brown, New York). 6. Merari, Ariel, (2000), ‘Terrorism as a Strategy of Struggle: Past and Future’, in Max Taylor and John Horgan eds. The Future of Terrorism (Frank Cass Publishing, London). 7. Netanyahu, Benjamin, (1986), ‘Defining Terrorism’, in Benjamin Netanyahu ed., Terrorism – How The West Can Win, (Collins, Toronto) 8. Onwudiwe, Ihekwoaba D, (2001), The Globalization of Terrorism, (Ashgate Publishing Ltd, England). 9. Schmid, Alex P, (1993), ‘The Response Problem as a Definition Problem’ in Ronald D Crelinsten and Alex P Schmid eds., Western Responses to Terrorism, (Frank Cass Publishing, London). 10. Schmid, Alex P & Jongman, Albert J et al, (1988), Political Terrorism – A new Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literature, (North-Holland Publishing Company – Amsterdam, Oxford, New York). 11. Wilkinson, Paul (1986), Terrorism and the Liberal State, (Macmillan Ltd, London). 12. Wilkinson, Paul (2000), Terrorism Versus Democracy, (Frank Cass Publishers, London). Articles In Publications 1. Annan Koffi, (January 2000),‘The Role of the United Nations in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security’, USI Journal, Vol 2. Badey, Thomas, (Spring 1998), ‘Defining International Terrorism: A Pragmatic Approach’, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol 10, No 1, pp90-107. 2. Ganor, Boaz, (2001) http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=393 .