- Many people, including some experts, maintain that there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. The UN has successfully negotiated 14 conventions that deal with terror and are generally called anti-terror conventions, but has not yet succeeded in defining terrorism. A Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism has remained under negotiation at the UN General Assembly since December 1996. Negotiations on this convention remain deadlocked because of differences on the definition of terrorism.
- Since it is intended as a criminal law instrument, the definition must have legal precision and certainty about what constitutes terrorism. It cannot be a political definition. The definition on the negotiating table since 2002 reads as follows:-
“Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:-
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities or systems referred to in Para 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss,
(d) When the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act”.
- The definition is not controversial in itself. The deadlock arises from opposing views on whether it would be applicable to actions by or attacks against the armed forces of a state and to self determination movements.
- But the belief that there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism may no longer be valid. While the UN may not have defined terrorism yet, an international judicial body set up under UN auspices has come out with a definition.
- In 2007, the UN Security Council established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) pursuant to UNSC Resolutions 1664 and 1757. This Special Tribunal is the world’s first UN based international criminal court set up to try a “terrorist” crime, intended to prosecute those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others in 2005. In the course of its deliberations, the five judge Appeals Chamber presided over by Judge Antonio Cassese issued guidance on the definition of “terrorism” to be applied by the STL. The Appeals Chamber opined that although it is held by many scholars and other legal experts that no widely accepted definition of terrorism has evolved in world society because of marked difference of views on some issues, closer scrutiny reveals that such a definition has in fact gradually emerged. It declared that the customary international law definition of terrorism consists of the following three elements, all of which must be present:-
The perpetration of a criminal act, such as murder, kidnapping, arson, hostage taking and so on, or threatening such an act;
The intent to spread fear among the population (which would generally entail creation of public danger) or directly or indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action or to refrain from taking it;
The involvement of a transnational element.
- The question is whether this definition will stand up to judicial scrutiny in domestic courts. There is international legal precedent and precedent has its own weight in law. But in the absence of an international convention and domestic legislation, can and will Indian courts take this precedent into account? To eliminate this doubt, is there need for our parliament to incorporate this definition into our laws? Readers, especially those with legal knowledge, may kindly send in their views.