Parliamentary Attempts to Define Terrorism in Canada and Australia

Abstract

ABSTRACTDefining terrorism has been a challenge academics have struggled with for decades. Consequently, many academics expressed skepticism when states like Canada and Australia decided to enshrine definitions of terrorism in post-9/11 antiterrorism legislation. Academics warned that there were many potential pitfalls in legalizing a definition of terrorism. However, it is unclear if legislators actually overcame those potential challenges or simply formalized a “we know it when we see it” labeling strategy. This work will take three steps in addressing this concern. First, it will assess some notable attempts at academic definitions of terrorism as to explore the gains and potential pitfalls that they warn about. Second, it will assess sociopolitical labeling strategies used by media and politicians when discussing terrorism. Finally, it will analyze Canadian and Australian antiterrorism legislative definitions to assess their success in overcoming the potential pitfalls of defining terrorism. This work offers perspective for academics and legislators on the importance of fully understanding the difficulties in defining terrorism.