Abstract
To escape the defeatist position that ‘one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter’, this essay distinguishes four arenas of discourse on terrorism: an academic one (where a consensus definition is offered); a state discourse (where definitions are generally wide and vague); a public one (as reflected in the media's usage of the term ‘terrorism'); and, finally, that of the ‘terrorists’ and their sympathisers (where the focus is on political ends, while avoiding a discussion of means). To escape the choice between a crime model of terrorism, which focuses on the illegal means only, and a war model, which portrays terrorism as a continuation of politics, a legal definition of terrorism is proposed as the peacetime equivalent of war crimes, thereby moving into an arena of discourse where there is much international agreement. Such definition of terrorist acts would narrow what can be rightfully considered terrorism, but broaden the consensus as to the unacceptability of terrorist methods.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
