The UN reform and the definition of terrorism

Résumé du document

This paper has three aims. The first is to introduce the semantic and political implications of defining terrorism within the United Nations: what would a definition of terrorism in such an international organization mean? Is it even acceptable? What would such an agreement imply? The second aim is to determine the concrete reasons of the failure, that is to say, the very contradictions it highlighted. The last aim of this paper is to analyse how the UN can act (and actually acts) against terrorism after such a failure: in the new global trend of securitization implied by the so-called war for terror, what would be the role of the UN, and which value would have the definition of terrorism in such a context?

Extraits

[...] Indeed, a major obstacle to the agreement on a general definition is the question of ‘resistance' to occupation. During a meeting held in March 2002, the Organization of the Islamic Conference handled the issue of defining terrorism and detaching it from Islam in the aftermath of September 11. The central question concerned the legitimacy of terrorist acts committed against civilians in the context of ‘resistance' against ‘occupation'. According to Austrian Professor Hans Koechler: "Through such a comprehensive codification effort it could be made clear that resistance or national liberation movements must in no way resort to terrorist tactics and that a (politically eventually legitimate) aim does not necessarily justify the means (or any means for that matter). [...]

[...] However, due to the failure of the ratification process, the definition has never entered into force. Moreover, this definition only included violence against States, which was theoretically unsatisfactory. Through the last century, various international conferences gathering lawyers, academics, State officials, regional organizations and international bodies, have produced a wide range of definitions. In 1988, a survey identified a total of 109 definitions. Facing the apparent impossibility to go beyond that semantic and political conflict, terrorism has been progressively defined in the international arena according to an inductive model. [...]

[...] Inter-State rivalry: defining terrorism as a State resource Whereas every single State is likely to admit that terrorism recognizes no national borders and therefore requires a global comprehension, the defining of terrorism seems to be constantly bound to isolated, regional, or even State-based struggles. Indeed, within the United Nations, the definition of terrorism has always been the support of States' claims and has often highlighted clear antagonisms that cannot be ignored as they are at the centre of many debates. The most obvious example of those antagonisms is of course the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, about which the extent of the definition of terrorism is a major issue. [...]

[...] In this case, the insistence on either individual or State terrorism seems to prevent any agreement on the definition. Moreover, certain States tend to add other issues to this first difficulty. Thus, Libya insists on the fact that use of economic embargoes aimed at controlling other countries should also be seen as a very serious form of terrorism.[19]” Here is denounced what is called “State terrorism” in another form, economic embargoes, perceived by Libya as a terrorist violence that should be included in a comprehensive definition of terrorism. [...]

[...] This activity was especially justified by the incapacity of General Assembly to reach an agreement on the definition of terrorism. This leads us to raise the question: is terrorism the private property of the Security Council? Indeed, it seems like the theoretical approach, which is traditionally the General Assembly's, does not fit the issue of terrorism. Since terrorism is unlikely to be defined on a universal basis because of its accusing implications, the democratic approach that General Assembly implies seems doomed to fail. [...]