Abstract
This article argues that academic debates on how and why terrorism is defined should not be reserved solely for abstract discussions about concepts of power, legitimacy and subjectivity, but should also include empirical, interdisciplinary case studies. Through the examination of UK legislation, debates of the Houses of Parliament and government commissioned reports and consultation papers, this article will demonstrate that a critical analysis of a particular case study can address some of the questions raised by philosophical debates on the definition of terrorism: how is terrorism defined? Who defines terrorism and why? What accounts for changing interpretations of what constitutes a terrorist or a terrorist organisation? Is there a single definition of terrorism that is acceptable to all societies? By examining how and why the definition of terrorism has evolved in UK law over the twentieth and twenty‐first centuries, this article adds an empirical dimension to the academic debate on definitions of terrorism and presents the case that interdisciplinary studies of terrorism will greatly advance academic understandings of the field.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
