‘Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law’

Antonio Cassese, EJIL, 2001 –

• The terrorist attack of 11 September has had atrocious effects not only at the human,
psychological and political level. It is also having shattering consequences for
international law. It is subverting some important legal categories, thereby imposing
the need to rethink them, on the one hand, and to lay emphasis on general principles,
on the other.
General Meaning of Terrorism – Extreme Fear

 The term "terrorism" originates from the Latin word terror, meaning extreme fear or
dread.
 Lack of Unanimity Due to Normative Differences - Despite its widespread use,
there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism due to normative and
political differences among states and institutions.
 Normative Differences: Disagreements arise over how terrorism should be defined
and understood in varying contexts. For example, what one state views as a terrorist
act, another may consider a legitimate fight for liberation.
 Political Implications: States often tailor definitions to align with their political
interests, which complicates achieving global consensus.

Contextual Use of the Term

The term "terrorism" has historically been used in diverse contexts, each carrying different
implications:
 Revolutionary Socialism: Refers to the use of violence to achieve revolutionary
goals, such as overthrowing capitalist systems or oppressive governments.
 Ethnic Nationalism: Involves violence motivated by the desire to establish or
maintain the dominance of a particular ethnic group.
 Self-Determination or Liberation Movements: Groups seeking independence from
colonial powers or occupying forces may engage in actions labeled as terrorism.
 Colonial Regime and Foreign Occupation: Terrorism has been used as a tactic to
resist foreign domination or military occupation, often by oppressed groups.
  Rebellion Against Authoritarian Rule: Violence against repressive governments
may be labeled terrorism, depending on the actor's perspective.

Core Element – Threat or Use of Violence Against Civilians

At its core, terrorism involves the threat or use of instrumental or coercive violence
against civilians.
 Key Feature: Civilians are typically targeted because attacks on them can instill
widespread fear and disrupt societal stability.
 Moral Question: This raises the contentious issue of whether all civilians are
innocent or if some may be complicit in systemic oppression or state policies.
o Some groups justify attacks on civilians by arguing that they are complicit in
enabling state oppression or military actions.
Examples:
 Deliberate Targeting: Bombings in public spaces to intimidate populations.
 Collateral Impact: Attacks on infrastructure affecting civilians indirectly.

The UNGA is currently working towards the adoption of a comprehensive convention

against terrorism,
Its draft article 2 contains a definition of terrorism which says – (It’s same definition which
has been put forward by India in 1996)
Any person commits an offence within the meaning of the present Convention if that person,
by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or
government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or to the
environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of the
present article resulting or likely to result in major economic loss;

Dual purpose - When the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to
abstain from doing any act.
 • The 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which
never entered into force, requires a specific intent to create a state of terror among
particular persons or the public.
• Purpose of compelling a State or an international organization to act or abstain
from acting first appears in the 1979 Convention Against the Taking of Hostages.
• Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon - defined terrorism as
criminal acts or threats thereof with ‘a transnational element’ committed with the
specific intent to either ‘spread fear among the civilian population’ or ‘directly or
indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action, or to refrain
from taking it…
• In 2017, NATO defined terrorism as ‘[t]he unlawful use or threatened use of force
or violence, instilling fear and terror, against individuals or property in an
attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, or to gain control over a
population, to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.

REGULATION OF TERRORISM

• Early efforts to regulate terrorism internationally stemmed from the need to address
legal gaps in extradition laws across Europe. Earlier Extradition treaties between
nations were often insufficient to prosecute individuals who committed politically
motivated crimes (e.g., acts of terrorism).
• So, The lack of consistent extradition laws created safe havens for perpetrators,
necessitating international cooperation and standardized legal frameworks.
League of Nations (LON) Initiatives
Two Major Conventions Proposed:
• The League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of
Terrorism: Focused on defining and criminalizing acts of terrorism.
• The League of Nations Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal
Court: Proposed the establishment of a global judicial body to try individuals accused
of terrorism-related crimes.

Then came, The 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism
 • This convention was one of the first comprehensive international efforts to address
terrorism. It required states to criminalize terrorism within their domestic legal
systems.
Key Provisions:
• Definition of Terrorism (Article 1(2)):
Acts of terrorism were defined as:
“Criminal acts directed against a [foreign] State and intended or calculated to create a
state of terror in the minds of particular persons, or a group of persons or the
general public.”
 Criminalization of Specific Acts (Article 2):
The convention listed physical acts that states were required to criminalize, including:
• Crimes against persons (e.g., murder, assault).
• Crimes against property (e.g., arson, bombings).
• Weapons Offenses: The use of explosives or other dangerous weapons.
• Ancillary Offenses: Supporting acts, such as financing or planning terrorist activities.

Despite its ambition, the 1937 Convention never entered into force due to the outbreak of
World War II and the subsequent collapse of the League of Nations.

UNGA JOURNEY

UNGA JOURNEY
1. Study Root Causes: - in the beginning, before 1970s – Poverty, religious extremism
and unequal development - root cause
2. Unequivocal Condemnation:
o After, 1970 The General Assembly categorically condemns terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations. This condemnation includes not just the act itself
but also the ideologies and processes that support or justify terrorism.
3. State Responsibility:
o Thenafter States have been held accountable under international law to
actively prevent terrorism. This includes taking measures to ensure their
 territory is not used for planning or supporting terrorist activities and
cooperating internationally in criminal prosecution or extradition.
Different sectoral convention to address terrorism-
1. 1963 Tokyo Convention:
a. Addresses offenses and acts jeopardizing order on board aircraft.
2. 1970 Hague Convention:
a. Criminalizes unlawful seizure (hijacking) of aircraft.
3. 1973 Convention on Internationally Protected Persons:
a. Protects diplomats and high-ranking officials from crimes.
4. 1979 Hostage-Taking Convention:
a. Prohibits the seizure of individuals to compel states or organizations.
5. 1988 Protocol on Violence at Airports:
a. Supplementary to the 1971 Montreal Convention addresses airport violence.
6. 1988 Maritime Navigation Convention:
a. Criminalizes acts threatening the safety of maritime navigation.
b. for traceability and detection.
7. 1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention:
a. Criminalizes bombings targeting public or state facilities.
8. 1999 Financing of Terrorism Convention:
a. Prohibits financing terrorist activities and networks.
9. 2005 Nuclear Terrorism Convention:
o Criminalizes the use or threat of nuclear material for terrorism.
 Among all these Most of the treaties avoid referring to ‘terrorism’, with the
exception of the three most recent treaties (since 1997) on terrorist financing,
terrorist bombings, and nuclear terrorism.
 The treaties typically require states to criminalise certain conduct, establish
extraterritorial jurisdiction, and cooperate by prosecuting or extraditing
suspects (the aut dedere aut judicare principle).

Phase of studying Root cause

 After the League of Nations initiative adopting the convention against terrorism in
1937 no major effort was made under the United Nations until 1972, which was as a
 response to the May 1972 terrorist killings of 28 airline passengers in Israel and of
11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games in September 1972.
 When the UN Secretary-General first suggested putting an item entitled Measures to
Prevent International Terrorism on the General Assembly agenda in 1972, it met
with considerable opposition.
 It was finally put on the agenda, but the title of the agenda item was changed from
‘Measures to Prevent International Terrorism’ to an unusually long title of
“Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent
human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms, and study of the underlying
causes of those forms of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery,
frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some people to sacrifice
human lives, including their own, in an attempt to effect radical changes”
 The title of this resolution suggests that the acts that are considered as terrorist
need to be contexualised in the reasons that lead to such acts rather than branding
them as mere violent acts. Therefore the title intends, while recognizing the gravity of
terrorist acts, to focus on the root causes of terrorism to eliminate conditions, that
force some people to resort to terrorist activities.
 A resolution of a similar nature was adopted in 1976 with similar language. Further
resolutions were adopted in 1977, 1979, 1981 and 1983.
 All these resolutions were framed in language similar to the 1972 resolution, which,
while deploring the terrorist activities the world over, emphasized the root causes of
terrorism and the need for the study of those root causes.

Phase of Expressing Concern about State Terrorism

 Significantly, in 1984 the General Assembly passed a resolution entitled

‘Inadmissibility of the policy of State terrorism and any actions by States aimed
at undermining the socio-political system in other sovereign States’.
 This resolution expressed ‘its profound concern that state terrorism has lately been
practiced even more frequently in relations between States and that military and other
actions are being taken against the sovereignty and political independence of States
and the self determination of peoples’.
Shift in the attitude of the General Assembly- Condemning every kind of terrorism act

• In continuation of its efforts, in 1985, the General Assembly adopted a resolution

stating that ‘it unequivocally condemns, as criminal, all acts, methods and
practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed’. Later on the
General Assembly also adopted resolutions in 1987, 1989 and 1991
• As the language of these resolutions suggests there was a clear shift in the attitude of
the General Assembly in its perception of the problem of terrorism. The significant
change in the resolutions that were adopted from 1985 is that they unequivocally
condemn terrorism.
• Previous resolutions of the General Assembly on terrorism have merely
expressed concern about terrorism seeking the international community to focus
also on the root causes of terrorism. Apparently because of the growing number of
the terrorist incidents affecting also many newly emerged and developing countries,
many States found it as threatening the legitimacy of the existing systems in their
countries.
• Though, these resolutions unequivocally condemned terrorism with less emphasis on
the root causes, they have reaffirmed the right to self determination with a view to
delinking the acts associated with the assertion of right to self determination
from terrorism.
• Therefore, from 1985 till 1991, the General Assembly in the resolutions
condemned terrorism while reaffirming the right to self-determination, in
particular the struggle of national liberation movements. In all these resolutions
General Assembly condemned terrorism wherever and by whomever committed.
Human Rights and Terrorism

• In 1993, the General Assembly passed a resolution entitled ‘Human Rights and
Terrorism’. This resolution deplored “the increasing number of innocent persons,
including women, children and elderly, killed, massacred and maimed by violence
and terror, which cannot be justified under any circumstances”.
• It also unequivocally condemned all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations, wherever and by whoever committed. However, it did not
include any paragraph reaffirming the right to self-determination. From then
 onwards the issue of human rights and terrorism has been on the agenda of the
UN General Assembly which has been repeatedly condemning the acts of
terrorism resulting in the violations of human rights.

Condemnation of Terrorism in All its Forms and Manifestations and in All

Circumstances
• By its resolution in December 1994, the General Assembly adopted a milestone
Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism.
• The 1994 Declaration characterized acts, methods and practices of terrorism as a
grave violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, which may
pose a threat to international peace and security, jeopardize friendly relations
among States, hinder international cooperation and aim at the destruction of
human rights, fundamental freedoms and the democratic bases of society.
• It determined that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in
the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are
in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political,
philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be
invoked to justify them.
• This Declaration also sought that ‘States, guided by the purposes and principles of the
Charter of the United Nations and other relevant rules of international law, must
refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in
territories of other States, or from acquiring in or encouraging activities within
their territories directed towards the commission of such acts.
• Two years later, in 1996, the General Assembly adopted another Declaration to
Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism.
• Member States reaffirmed the fundamental principles of the previous Declaration and
proclaimed that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts were
also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
• Furthermore, the 1996 Declaration, reaffirmed that States should take appropriate
measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and
international law, including international standards of human rights, before
granting refugee status to persons seeking asylum. The purpose of this provision
would be to ensure that the asylum-seeker had not participated in terrorist acts.
 • The Declaration recognized the sovereign rights of States in extradition matters.
However, States were encouraged, when concluding or applying extradition
agreements, not to regard as political offences, excluded from the scope of extradition
agreements, offences connected with terrorism which endanger or represent a physical
threat to the safety and security of persons, whatever the motives which may be
invoked to justify them.
Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism
• The General Assembly, in its 1996 resolution also decided to establish an Ad Hoc
Committee. The main task of that body, as defined by the Assembly, is to elaborate an
international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and,
subsequently, an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear
terrorism, to supplement related existing international instruments.
• The Committee was instrumental in the elaboration of and adoption by the General
Assembly of three important instruments related to the prevention and suppression of
international terrorism.
• International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,1997;
• International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,1999;
• International Convention for the Suppression of acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 2005.

DEFINITION BY ILC: CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

ILC Codification on International Crimes and Terrorism

The International Law Commission (ILC) has played a significant role in codifying the
concept of terrorism, particularly emphasizing state-sponsored terrorism over violence by
autonomous non-state actors (NSAs).
1991 Draft Definition
 Proposed terrorism as an act by one state against another involving:
o Undertaking, organizing, assisting, financing, encouraging, or tolerating
acts that:
 Target persons or property.
 Instill terror in public figures, groups, or the general public.

1995 Revised Draft

  Added the element of compulsion:
o Acts must be committed to compel the victim state to grant advantages or
act in a specific way.
Inclusion in the ICC's Development (1996)
 The General Assembly highlighted the 1996 ILC Draft Code in the context of
establishing an International Criminal Court (ICC) through: The ILC's draft was
referenced during the discussions for the Rome Statute.
1998 Draft Rome Statute
 Revived autonomous crimes of terrorism in Article 5, categorized into three
distinct offences:
1. State-Sponsored Terrorism:
o Activities such as undertaking, organizing, sponsoring, or tolerating acts
of violence:
 Directed at persons or property.
 Creating terror, fear, or insecurity among public figures, groups,
or the general public.
 Irrespective of motives (political, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious,
etc.).
2. Sectoral Offences:
o Crimes covered under existing anti-terrorism treaties (e.g., conventions
addressing hijacking, bombings, or financing terrorism).
3. Indiscriminate Violence:
o Use of firearms, explosives, or other dangerous substances to cause:
 Death or serious injury.
 Extensive property damage.
Rome Diplomatic Conference (1998)
 34 States Supported the Inclusion of Terrorism in the ICC mandate, emphasizing
its:
1. Shocking Impact:
 Terrorism outrages the conscience of humanity.
2. Grave Humanitarian and Economic Consequences:
 Involves immense human suffering and property destruction.
3. Escalating Threat:
  Increasing frequency and scale of terrorist acts.
4. Global Security Risk:
 Threatens international peace and security.
UNSC

• Prior to 9/11, the UN Security Council sporadically condemned specific terrorist acts,
• Its approach changed radically after 9/11. By resolution 1373 (2001) – Binding ,
adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council directed all
States to criminalize terrorism in domestic law (as well as universalising the
offences in the patchily-ratified Terrorist Financing Convention).
• Resolution 1373 did not define terrorism for the purpose of national
criminalization, resulting in the decentralized and haphazard national
implementation.
• Resolution 1566 (2004) – Provided for what could be a terrorist – only
recommendary - the Security Council eventually signalled its conception of
terrorism as:
• …criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause
death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a
state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons,
intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do
or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as
defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism…
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon
• In 2007, the UN Security Council established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
(“STL”) to prosecute those responsible for the 2005 assassination of Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and twenty-two others. On January 17, 2011, the
Tribunal’s Prosecutor, submitted a sealed indictment for the pre-trial judge to
confirm. The pre-trial judge, in turn, requested that the Appeals Chamber resolve
fifteen questions relating to the substantive criminal law and modes of criminal
responsibility to be applied by the STL and to determine whether the STL should
charge crimes cumulatively or in the alternative.
• It is arguably considered the first international court with jurisdiction over the crime
of terrorism
• On 16 February 2011, the STL Appeals Chamber issued an Interlocutory Decision on
the applicable law, having been asked by the pre-trial judge to clarify the law, inter
alia, on the notion of terrorism to be applied by the Tribunal.
• It used this opportunity to express some thoughts on the customary international law
status of the crime of terrorism.
• Judges observed, ‘[i]t is held by many scholars and other legal experts that no widely
accepted definition of terrorism has evolved in the world society because of the
marked difference of views on some issues’. Yet, they continued that‘[c]loser scrutiny
reveals that in fact such a definition has gradually emerged’.
• For the Chamber, a number of treaties and UN resolutions, and the legislative and
judicial practice of states, indicate that a customary rule of international law on the
crime of terrorism has emerged. There is ‘a settled practice concerning the
punishment of acts of terrorism’ and ‘this practice is evidence of a belief of States that
the punishment of terrorism responds to a social necessity and is hence rendered
obligatory by the existence of a rule requiring it (opinio juris)’.
• According to the Appeals Chamber, this definition had customary international-law
status at least in relation to the international crime of terrorism committed in times of
peace.
• -On the basis of treaties, UN resolutions, and the legislative and judicial practice of
states, the following key elements of such a crime were identified:
• (i) the perpetration of a criminal act (such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking,
arson, and so on), or threatening such an act;
• (ii) the intent to spread fear among the population (which would generally entail the
creation of public danger) or directly or indirectly coerce a national or international
authority to take some action, or to refrain from taking it; and
• (iii) the involvement of a transnational element
• Recognized only peace-time terrorism as a crime
• It indicated that a broader norm that would outlaw terrorist acts during times of armed
conflicts may also be emerging.
• There was no direct application of international law; rather, they used it to interpret
Lebanese law.
• Applicable law for STL was – Lebanese Criminal Code

National LAWS
 • AC made no effort to distinguish between those national laws that address domestic
terrorism and those that concern international terrorism. (It classifies transnational
crimes only as Customary Crime).
• The conflation of national definitions of terrorism used for terrorism and non-
terrorism purposes.
• Peripheral variations in the definition of terrorism
• Only 37 jurisdictions have been cited. (2006 data suggests 87 – lacked special
definition of terrorism, 46 – generic definition, and 48 – composite generic definition)
• Relied upon domestic laws that violate human rights norms.
National Laws and UNSC RES. 1373 & 1566
• 1373 does not define terrorism.
• 1566 provided a working definition, but the resolution was not binding, and it even
excluded the freedom movement from its definition.
• Even the AC definition differs from the one provided by 1566.
• 3. Little attention to human-rights implications.
National judicial decisions
• AC did not consider those cases which clearly held that terrorism is not a customary
crime.
• Cases referred at times were not directly relevant for terrorism.
International treaties
1. Numerous efforts by the international community since the 1920s have not produced
agreement on a general international crime of terrorism.
2. Sectoral convention does not contain a general definition of terrorism.
3. Regional treaties have several variations.
4. Regional treaties do not enjoy widespread regional participation by members.
5. Reliance on Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism
• Terrorism definition in Lebanese law does not try to implement the convention.
• It only defines for the purpose of intl. co-operation and not for domestic
criminalization.
• Its definition raises human rights concerns.
UN Resolutions
• 1994 Declaration on Measures Against Intl. Terrorism
• The declaration was passed with consensus without any formal objection
• When matter reached 6th Committee states voiced their disagreements
• 1994 declaration definition requires political purpose, other convention does not
require such political purpose
ICTY
Galic Case
• Stanislav Galic, a Bosnian Serb military officer, was the accused in this case. He held
the position of Commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps of the Bosnian Serb
Army during the Bosnian War, which took place in the 1990s. The Romanija Corps
played a significant role in the siege of Sarajevo, which was one of the longest and
deadliest sieges in modern history.
• In the Galić case (2003), the ICTY was the first international tribunal to recognize
‘the crime of terror as a violation of the laws or customs of war’, based on a violation
of Article 51(2) of API. The elements of the crime are as follows:
I. Acts of violence directed against the civilian population or individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities causing death or serious injury to body or health
within the civilian population. (direct or indirect participation into the
hostilities)
II. The offender wilfully made the civilian population or individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities the object of those acts of violence. (WILFULLY
TARGETING OF CIVILIANS)
III. The above offence was committed with the primary purpose of spreading terror
among the civilian population. (INTENTION OF THE TARGET)
• In the case of Galić, the court found that the war crime of spreading terror was
committed during the siege of Sarajevo. This involved deliberately targeting civilians
through sniping and shelling. The attacks were carried out in a way that caused
widespread fear and suffering. Civilians were targeted based on their daily activities,
and the attacks were planned and executed at specific times to maximize their impact.
These actions were sustained over a prolonged period, further intensifying the terror
among the people living in the city.
(A siege is a military tactic where armed forces surround a city, fortress, or area to cut off
essential supplies like food, water, and communication in an attempt to force the
defenders to surrender.
Sniping involves the use of precision rifles by snipers to deliberately target individuals,
often from a concealed position.
Shelling refers to the use of heavy artillery, mortars, or rockets to bombard an area with
explosive projectiles (shells).
• The ICTY found that civilians were targeted ‘while engaged in typical civilian
activities or where expected to be found’ throughout the city, such as during funerals;
in ambulances and hospitals; on trams and buses; when driving, cycling, or walking;
at home or in school; while shopping; when gardening, tending fires, clearing rubbish,
or collecting water or firewood; at suppertime; and at public festivals and funerals.
• The court ruled that attacks aimed at combatants or military targets are not banned,
even if they also cause fear or terror among civilians as a side effect.

In Milošević (2007), the ICTY

• In Milošević (2007), the ICTY found another Bosnian Serb commander responsible
for the war crime of spreading terror during the Sarajevo siege, again for a campaign
of sniping and shelling of civilians, including by the use of inaccurate and
indiscriminate modified air bombs.
• Slobodan Milošević, the former President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, was a prominent
figure in the Balkans during the conflicts that took place in the 1990s, particularly
during the wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. He was charged
with multiple counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide related to
these conflicts.
Brima et al, Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)
• The SCSL has also followed the Galić jurisprudence to find numerous convictions
for the war crime of spreading terror.
• In Brima et al (2007), it found that the war crime of terror was committed by violent
attacks on civilians, including amputation and mutilation. Such acts constituted
terrorism because they were committed against unarmed civilians repeatedly, brutally,
and not for military advantage; they were often accompanied by perpetrator
statements that they were done to cause fear; and they aimed to intimidate
civilians not to support the adversary.
• The Brima case involved three defendants, namely Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon,
and Augustine Gbao. They were senior leaders within the Revolutionary United Front
(RUF), a rebel group that played a significant role in the Sierra Leone civil war. The
defendants were charged with a range of war crimes and crimes against humanity,
 including acts of terrorism, unlawful killings, sexual slavery, forced labour, and other
serious violations of international humanitarian law.
In Sesay et al (2009), SCSL
• In Sesay et al (2009), the SCSL found that terrorism was constituted by unlawful
killings, rape, sexual violence and forced marriage, physical violence, abductions,
enslavement and forced labour, threats, and looting and burning of property.
• Indications of the intent to spread terror included: the lack of a military or other
legitimate objective; brutality (such as mutilations and amputations); the location of
attacks (such as at public places, protests, homes, and schools); mass attacks to
compel obedience; the scale of property destruction out of proportion to the effects of
hostilities; the targeting of public officials or collaborators; public demonstration
killings and publicizing attacks to intimidate others; indiscriminate attacks; threats,
insults, or statements by perpetrators as to their intent; punishment to warn civilians
not to support the adversary; evidence of a policy (gori-gori) to target and subdue and
seek revenge against, civilians; and civilian efforts to hide from fighters.
In Taylor (2012)
• In Taylor (2012), the SCSL found that acts of terrorism had been committed through
the burning of civilian property, unlawful killings, sexual violence (including rape and
sexual slavery), and physical violence (including amputations and mutilations), with
the intent to spread terror.
• Such acts were typically done to intimidate civilians into leaving the area; to warn
them not to resist; to demonstrate the repercussions of supporting the enemy; and, in
the case of sexual violence, to destroy the traditional family nucleus, thus
undermining the cultural values and relationships which held society together.
• Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, was charged with crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and other serious violations of international law. The charges
were related to his alleged role in supporting and backing rebel groups in Sierra Leone
during its civil war, which lasted from 1991 to 2002. Charles Taylor was accused of
providing military and logistical support to various Sierra Leonean rebel groups,
including the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), in exchange for diamonds and other
resources. The support allegedly included weapons, training, and fighters.

IHL AND ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

 • The extent to which criminalized acts apply in armed conflicts
• It is necessary if the crime in question involves death, injury or damage that is
inherent to all armed conflicts with the simple purpose of compelling a State to do or
not to do something, which is the purpose of all armed conflicts.

Excluding ‘[t]he activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are
understood under international humanitarian law, which is governed by that law’

Terrorism as IAC
• War on terrorism as IAC because it is to be conducted on a worldwide basis.
• Challenges in categorization as IAC
1. S v NSA
2. Possibility of Double Classification
3. National liberation wars as IAC under AP I.

TERRORISM AS NIAC

I. S v NSA – generally labeled as terrorists, but for IHL they can be termed
as Armed Groups
II. S v Transnational Terrorist Group – may be NIAC (States do not view
them as initiation of armed conflict) (this is not a situation of AC because
UK while ratifying AP I stated that the term armed conflict of itself and its
context denotes a situation of a kind which is not constituted by the
commission of ordinary crimes including acts of terrorism whether
concerted or in isolation.)
[Link] is not possible because the concept was developed in the context of
S v NSA in the territory of the state.
IV. Development of any new conflict will require fixation of rights and
obligations of both parties.