For decades, international lawyers have wrangled over the question - What is terrorism? Is it an act designed to spread terror? Does it have a political motive? Does it involve an attack on a few people or alot of people? Since 1914, philosophers have pondered whether the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Sarajevo can be classified as an ‘act of terror’. More recently, the September 11 attacks in the US, have brought the issue of international terrorism to the forefront of debate, and with it the question of its very definition.

By Geraldine Coughlan, Leidschendam

Today, while there are a variety of definitions of terrorism in a dozen international conventions, the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon near The Hague, has taken the first step towards arriving at a single definition of the crime of terrorism.

The Court is due to rule on 16th February, on which definitions of terrorism and other crimes that it will apply. It is expected that this ruling will set a precedent for other international courts, which also want to see a universal definition of terrorism as much as they want to see their prime terrorist suspects, in the dock.

The Lebanon tribunal is the first international court with jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism, but it is grappling with how to apply Lebanese and international law, before including a terrorism charge in potential arrest warrants. As the tribunal applies Lebanese law, but has an international character, the question is – should a definition of terrorism be based on Lebanese law or international law?

In its first hearing on 7th February, the court’s lawyers and judges began thrashing out the question of what constitutes an act of terrorism and other crimes such as conspiracy and homicide, as they prepare to prosecute suspects for the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.

As the tribunal is based on the Lebanese Criminal Code, which already has a definition of the crime of terrorism, the prosecution and defence have now agreed on applying that definition, which is that ‘acts of terrorism’ are acts which are intended to cause a state of alarm and are committed by means such as explosive devices, liable to pose a public threat.

The prosecution has even proposed its own definition, as an act by which “a substantial section of the public reasonably and significantly fears more than momentarily from the present onward, indiscriminate personal harm”.

The prosecution claims there’s no need to prove political intent as a motive for a terrorist act and argues that its own definition will act as a ‘working tool’ for use in future trials.

Most legal experts agree that it is important to define terrorism and other notions such as conspiracy and joint criminal enterprise, to make it easier to link crimes to leaders. This is one of the difficulties in cases before the ICTY and suspects could expect tougher sentences, if the definitions of these crimes were more clear and concise.

The defence, though, is against agreeing on firm definitions, claiming this would prematurely impose them on trial judges, limiting the rights of the accused.

Meantime, there is still no consensus on how the world community regards the crime of terrorism and its place in domestic and international law. The crux of the matter lies in the difference between Articles 2 and 3 of the Tribunal’s statute. Article 2 refers solely to Lebanese law, while Article 3 relies directly on international law, and so reflects the international character of the Tribunal. Does this mean there is a conflict between the definition of terrorism in the Lebanese Criminal Code and the notion of terrorism as reflected in international law? The judges are adamant that international law is relevant in determining the notion of terrorism and as Lebanon has ratified the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the judges believe the Lebanese definition of terrorism should be based on the norms of international law.

As the tribunal is moving into “uncharted territory in international law”, the judges are concerned about whether the public will easily be able to understand the complex legal issues involved in defining terrorism.

The presiding judge Antonio Cassese, warned that Lebanon, as a founding member of the UN, is now set on a “course of judicial accountability” in aiming to establish a common definition of terrorism, which is a common threat to us all. However, until states can agree on a single definition – it will be argued that the notion of terrorism does not actually exist.

Download the print version of the International Justice Tribune 122 (PDF file)

Subscribe to the International Justice Tribune

Earlier IJT editions:

• International Justice Tribune, 121 (2 February 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 120 (19 January 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 119 (14 December 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 118 (1 December 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 117 (17 November 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 116 (2 November 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 115 (20 October 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 114 (4 October 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 113 (21 September)
• International Justice Tribune, 112 (8 September 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 111 (25 August 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 110 (14 July 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 109 (30 June 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 108 (16 June 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 107 (2 June 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 106 (19 May 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 105 (5 May 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 104 (21 April 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 103 (7 April 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 102 (24 March 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 101 (10 March 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 100 (24 February 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 99 (10 February 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 98 (27 January 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 97 (13 January 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 96 (23 December 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 95 (9 December 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 94 (25 November 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 93 (11 November 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 92 (28 October 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 91 (14 October 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 90 (30 September 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 89 (16 September 2009)