Internacional response to terrorism

ANA CARBONELL AND

KONSTANTIN RINCKENS

INTERNATIONAL PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

INTRODUCTION

For more than thirty years States have debated in the UN the question of punishing terrorism. However, they have been unable to agree upon a definition of this crime.

Third World countries defend their view that this notion could not cover acts of violence perpetrated by the so-called freedom fighters (individuals and groups struggling for the realisation of self-determination). In consequence, the majority of UN members preferred to take a different approach , namely to draw up conventions prohibiting sets of well-specified acts.

In this way the thorny question of establishing a broad and general definition of terrorism was circumvented. However, condemnation of terrorism increased.

In 9 December 1994 , an agreement was reach and laid down in resolution 49/60 passed by consensus by the UN General Assembly.

It contains a provision stating the following: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons for political purposes 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”.

This provision sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism.

Three main elements are required:

1. The acts must constitute a criminal offence under national legal systems.
2. They must be aimed at speeding terror among civilians with a view to intimidate, coerce or influence the policy of a government.
3. They must be politically or ideologically motivated.

International terrorism may constitute either a war crime or a crime against humanity.

CLASSIFICATION OF TERRORISM BASED ON MOTIVATION

We can distinguish different types of terrorist acts taking into account their motivation:

• Ethno-nationalist/ separatist terrorism: based on the grievances of the past, they promise to regain economic, political and cultural rights of the ethnic groups as well as opposing to any subordination or cultural assimilation by the dominan national group.

Ex: ETA ( in Spain)  and IRA ( in Northern Ireland)

• Religiously motivated terrorism: even they are affiliated to different religions, they all have a common feature: they believe that their acts are a reflection of obeying God orders.

Ex: Yihadist movement and Katch movement

• Revolutionary terrorism: use terrorism  as part of a revolutionary process to seize power from an existing government and intend to create fear and confusion on specific groups to change opposing political behaviour.

Ex: Revolutionary People´s Liberation Party in Turkey.

INTERESTATE LEGAL REACTION TO TERRORISM

Two types of international legal response ro terrorist attacks may be distinguished: the peaceful and the coercive.

Peaceful response embraces all non-forcible measures against terrorist organizations or States assisting terrorists. They include all mechanisms aimed at strengthening State cooperation in the fight against terrorism.  Among these mechanisms are the international treaties, intended to coordinate the national action taken by each contracting State against terrorism, in particular, they make provision for the arrest and prosecution or extradition of terrorists.

Other peaceful responses are those measures not involving the use of armed force that the Security Council may order or recommend pursuant to article 41 of the UN Charter to react to acts threating or breaching the peace.

On the other hand, coercive response involves the use of armed force in the territory of another State or in areas not subject to national sovereignty ( high seas, international airspace) either by individual States on their own initiative to by more than one State following a recommendation of the UN SC.

HIERARCHY BETWEEN BOTH TYPES OF RESPONSE

The fundamental principles of the international community laid down in the UN Charter indicate that peaceful responses must come first.

The UN Charter provides in article 2.3 that “ All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Only after every effort has been made to deal with a terrorsit attack by peaceful means may Atates resort to military action”.

However, State practice shows that in some cases States opt immediately for a forcible response to terrorist activity and receive no greater admonition from the rest of the international community than a verbal condemnation.

As regards the sources of the  international law governing them, the rules governing the coercive response are part of the law on the use of armed force, which most of it is. Customary international law, binding to ask subjects of IL.  On the other hand, the rules governing the peaceful response are contained in treaties that although being clearer and less ambiguous than customs have only binding force on the States that have ratified them ( not universally applicable).

PEACEFUL RESPONSES

1. Treaties on terrorism

Mechanisms for peaceful action to terrorism can be found in a number of agreements, although it has not been possible to achieve acceptance of a universal treaty covering all kinds of terrorist acts.

A convention of this type was drafted in 1937 and even approved by the League of Nations, but never entered into force.

There have been a number of multilateral treaties covering specific types of acts :

• Hijacking aircraft : 1970 Hague Convention
• Sabotaging aircraft : 1071 Montreal Convention
• Delivering, placing, discharging or detonating an explosive or other lethal device: 1997 Convention on terrorist bombing
• Financing terrorism: 1999 Convention

There are various treated that regulate the conduct of armed conflict , such as The fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the two 1977 Additional Geneva Protocol, which contain provisions protecting civilians and banning terrorist attacks.

...