The world could soon see the first single definition of terrorism, after appeals judges at the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon on Wednesday, set a precedent for international courts.
There are various definitions of terrorism in a dozen international conventions, but still no universal definition of an act of terrorism as an international crime. The Lebanon tribunal, based in the Netherlands, is the world's first international court with jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism. It was set up to try those accused over the 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others. The tribunal applies Lebanese law, but interprets this in the context of international law.
In a landmark ruling, judges unanimously agreed to use Lebanon's definition of terrorism as an "act intended to spread terror" - but they also agreed to apply a broader international interpretation of the 'means' of an attack - whether the weapons used were intended to endanger members of the public.
The pre-trial judge Daniel Fransen is now to decide whether to confirm a draft indictment submitted by prosecutors last month. The indictment, which is confidential, is expected to accuse Hezbollah members of involvement in Hariri's assassination. If the indictment is confirmed, the court could issue arrest warrants against the accused. Hezbollah denies any involvement.
The ruling took place with Lebanon still seeking to form a new government after the militant Shi'ite Hezbollah movement and its allies toppled the government of Hariri's son, Saad al-Hariri, over his refusal to cut links with the tribunal.
Hezbollah has warned anyone against taking action against its members. It also said that the priority of Lebanon's new government should be to cut ties with the tribunal, end Lebanon's contributions to its funding, and withdraw Lebanese judges from the court. This is unlikely, as the tribunal was established by a 2006 UN Security Council Resolution in an agreement with Lebanon.
Presiding judge Antonio Cassese said Wednesday's ruling should prove that the tribunal intends to be "absolutely impartial, independent of any political pressure or interference."
gsh
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
Terrorism cannot be given an absolute definition, because it is a relative term. What is terrorism for one party, is a revolution and legitimate cause for the other party. One country's hero is the other country's villian. So long as there are different idealogies, interests and means to achieve those goals, this conflict of interest is there to stay.The guerillas/rebels of a country are hated by the government and loved by the people they represent.And strangely though, these acts are often violent and innocent lives are lost, but vested interests are quick to take sides and trade charges, giving least thought to the death and destruction that ensues..
This is a useful exercise. How can international law meaningfully react to terrorism without a definition?
We all agree that 9/11 was terrorism. That one is easy. But what about IEDs in roadways? How to define a legitimate arms manufacturer? What's the difference between a terrorist group and a militia? When and where is it appropriate to place land mines? I believe that working towards consensus on these and other questions may lead to a more peaceful world.
So many lawyers, so little rope.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.