An attempt at producing a universally acceptable definition of terrorism

Abstract

Despite an explosive increase of terrorist acts on the global level, terrorism has not been comprehensively defined to the present date. Moreover, there is not even a generally accepted and approved definition. Some government officials tend to call all violent acts, committed by their opponents, the acts of terrorism. On the other side, antigovernment extremists state that they are the victims of government terror. Imprecise and ambiguous nature of this term accounts for the fact that it is applied to all acts that generate fear and terror for the purpose of attaining various aims. In a more general sense, it can be applied to some similar acts of violence, such as, a plane hijacking, which originally was not planned to become a terrorist act. Political sociologists believe that, unfortunately, it is not possible to reach a more universal definition of terrorism since the mere defining process is the part of a wider constellation of ideological and political goals. All efforts made in this direction support the argument that prospects change depending on the fact where and when a terrorist act is committed. However, the question of defining this phenomenon is crucial for its understanding and for determining the measures against it. Most observers are ready to label every act of violence as a terrorist act. Others are not willing to classify violent acts of revolutionary nature as terrorist acts. Confusion is even increased if we want to define the same act of violence which is committed by a politically motivated individual, a criminal or a mentally defective person. To conclude, literature on terrorism abounds in generalization of this matter describing it as a substitute for conventional way of waging a war, the weapon of the weak, pathological acts of violence, reaction of the state to violence, etc. Such generalizations additionally hinder the attempts to find an acceptable definition. Wrong conceptions are frequently found because they are exclusively made by western countries or third world countries. With the appearance of new polarizations, new technological advancement and new political relations, we shall encounter new forms of motivation, new aspirations and new forms of violence. This will even further complicate defining terrorism, as well as the struggle against it at the international level - as George Bush put it after 9/11 events: 'The struggle against terrorism is endless and future generation should be ready for the fact that it will never be eradicated. The age of terrorism can last centuries.'.