INTRODUCTION Terrorism is one of the major ways to carry out violence either to prove a point or just to cause harm. Since 9/11, terrorism has been on the increase and the lack of a firm definition does not help solve the issue. To understand the ultimate purpose of terrorism, this essay will be looking at the concept of terrorism and why violence has to be used to prove a point in a state. It will also be looking at how many states are able to maintain their stand after a terrorist attack (using US and 9/11 as an example) as well as the destabilization it has caused in the state. Finally, it will argue how their goal may be the ultimate end for the attacked state.
The problem is a result of the ambiguous and subjective nature of the term terrorism. The disagreement over a legally binding definition is one that centers around state sponsored terrorism and the inability to create a clear criterion of what actions are viewed as terrorist. Without a legally biding definition, there is no set of rule or characteristic that sets the standards for states and other actors to abide by. It allows each state to create a definition that best benefits their cause as well as blurring the ethical uses of certain weapons or tactics. Lastly it makes it harder to successfully pursue, prosecute and convict accused terrorist.
Terrorism: Impediments to International Cooperation International cooperation in regard to thwarting terrorism leaves much to be desired. This relates to a number of problems. First, there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. Without such a definition it is difficult or even impossible to put in place policies and laws that will affect international cooperation and the ultimate reduction or elimination of terrorism. Second, too much perverse incentive exists for those that turn a blind eye to terrorism.
Those are purely interpretations of those reacting to events. In some jurisdictions, terrorism is a crime. At least one nation has chosen to consider it an act of war. I consider these judgments to be separate from the definition of the action. Similarly, the usage of transnational pre-emptive force is irrelevant to a definition.
Another point of co... ... middle of paper ... ...o the terrorists are and what their goals are.  It is important to see the difference between ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ terrorists. Terrorist with political goals that are obtainable may be open to negotiations and a path towards nonviolent resolutions whereas terrorists with ideological goals (often religious in nature) may not be open to negotiations, and certainly not without inciting further violence and terrorist activity. Works Cited 1] Harmonie Toros.”We Don’t Negotiate with Terrorists! : Legitimacy and Complexity in terrorist Conflicts.” Security Dialogue 39 (2008): 407-426.
Pogge(p13) reinforces this by pointing out unjustified moral appeals and assertions on both sides, such as Bush claiming that “America must defend freedom against the enemies of freedom”. Now since neither terrorism nor war can be justified, but one is not significantly worse than the other. Why is war accepted, but terrorism not justified to the point that even the political objectives are not considered or even looked at? This all indicates that there may not be any morally significant differences between war and terrorism, except for the manner in which the conflicts are fought. This excludes the protection of non-combatants, but sometimes defends the prohibition of excessive and unnecessary warfare banned under the Geneva protocol.
The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe... ... middle of paper ... ...and order within in the endangered state.
Coady’s definition again seems to revolve around the distinctions being made by the noncombatant immunity principle. In fact, Coady states that by his definition, terrorism is always wrong because it violates that noncombatant immunity principle. Coady believes his definition is contentious because by it states can engage in terrorism. That is a notion that goes against the concept of pro-state bias that was referred to earlier. Coady believe that many philosopher hold states immune from engaging in terrorism if certain circumstance (supreme emergencies) are present.
This can prove problematic, especially when governments opt to condemn terrorists, but cannot universally agree who a terrorist is (Krueger 2008). At present, the UK law defines terrorism as ‘The use or threat designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public for the purposes of advancing political, religious or an ideological cause’ (Terrorism Act 2000). However, this definition fails to establish what the relationship between terrorism and religion actually is (Al-Khattar
Furthermore, unlike as compared to a state, one cannot formally declare war on a terrorist group, thus causing difficulties in regards to concerns of specific conflicts or targets. It is not as if one could penalize a terrorist group with economic sanctions or any other means states employ to deter threats from and intimidate one another. The globalized world has created a form of terrorism that knows no borders, and it would be very difficult to exert one’s will on a terrorist group, at least on a large scale. The coinciding fact that terrorists do not conduct warfare in the same manner as states do makes them increasingly unpredictable. A terrorist employment of a nuclear arm would not occur during an organized conflict; rather it would be used in a terrorist attack without warning.