Kofi Annan's words reveal how important and central the fight against terrorism is in pacifying international relations and protecting human beings across the world. That also shows to what extent we are all concerned by this threat. However, the international community still meets difficulties when trying to agree on a strict definition of terrorism. Therefore, the United Nations cannot fight efficiently against this international phenomenon. They cannot identify and condemn an act as terrorist on the behalf of the whole community. Moreover, the sovereignty of a State on its own territory is totally consensual so that can be an obstacle to intervene quickly enough to fight efficiently against terrorism.
[...] This is why it is so urgent to delimit what the term State terrorism designates exactly and how different terrorism is from other international crimes. Some models have been developed to standardize the State's sponsor of terrorism and are particularly needed to understand recent scientific progressions. Martin Gus[5] sets out a model which is divided according to the type of sponsorship (patronage or assistance) and the domain of intervention (international or domestic). This model appears as very adapted to easily synthesize and classify the usual State terrorism according to the previous definition given. [...]
[...] Corruption and disorder on such a large scale for it to be possible to genocide a big part of the population, without reaction, is very unlikely at the present time. However, this is not the situation in all countries and when the democracy is not a strongly rooted feature in the political culture, abuses are very common. Authoritarian states, totalitarian states and crazy states share this tendency to lean towards absolute power and quarrelsome policies. According to the first definition of terrorism given at the beginning of this analysis, state terrorism is an accepted concept. [...]
[...] In this outlook, it can be added that State terrorism is the participation of a state to perpetuate this violence both in the domestic and international stage. However, the domestic aspect of State terrorism is very ambiguous. As was seen, by limiting the analysis to the main agreement on the definition, no difference can be strictly made with authoritarian policies. Furthermore, I think that in the domestic sphere, the theory of terrorism as a specific act based upon violence exercised against citizens cannot be defended. [...]
[...] According to these considerations, we can try to argue that terrorism can be differentiated from authoritarian policies by its legitimacy and the institutions' authorizations to require such means to maintain order. This would imply that if a group (racial, ethnic, religious . ) is legitimately in power, it can kill the other parts of the population by using its dominant position in the institutions. This is definitively not the way to differentiate terrorism from authoritarian policies. This issue depends intrinsically on the definition, still unilateral, that one can defend for the concept of state terrorism. [...]
[...] Self-determination, terrorism and the international Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers - A. George. Western State Terrorism. Polity Press - M. Gus. Understanding Terrorism, challenge, perspective and issues. 2nd Edition. Sage publication - P. Wilkinson. Terrorism and the liberal State. 2nd Edition. MacMillan - K. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
