A new definition of terrorism
In my pre-previous post I wrote about Iran’s ratification of Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism.
That’s granted that there is no consensus among States on the exact definition of Terrorism, however such conventions and the anti terrorism treaty collection under UN, have exemplified the concept in their own specific ways, and it is while domestic laws of states have shed some light on the issue as well.
This Convention too, contains a definition of Terrorism that reads “Terrorism means any act of violence or threat thereof notwithstanding its motives or intentions perpetrated to carry out an individual or collective criminal plan with the aim of terrorizing people or threatening to harm them or imperiling their lives, honor, freedoms, security or rights or exposing the environment or any facility or public or private property to hazards or occupying or seizing them, or endangering a national resource, or international facilities, or threatening the stability, territorial integrity, political unity or sovereignty of independent States.”
to me, since terrorism is a crime, it has to be defined in stricto sensu, the fact that`s missing from the above-said definition; letting aside the looseness, article 1(4), that goes “Crimes stipulated in the following conventions are also considered terrorist crimes with the exception of those excluded by the legislations of Contracting States or those who have not ratified them”(referring to UN conventions on terrorism), can put international cooperation into jeopardy; because it has made it harder to link Islamic Conference attempts to the mainstream of the UN members› endeavor against international terrorism, by putting domestic provisions of contracting parties in superiority to those provisions that UN conventions imply.
this may be explainable considering the facts:
1) the continuance of occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel,
2) presence of foreign troops in the region (Iraq and Afghanistan) which in case of Iraq, in the first place was utterly against old costumed Jus ad bellum, and was sort of justified ex post facto by the Security Council;
Letting aside the positive and negative effects of such a loose definition from Islamic Conference on terrorism, first and foremost, it seems to be a response to the loose policy making of the great powers in the Security Council and the United Nations System to combat the so called terrorism in the first place.
For those mates who eager to read on the mere question of definition of Terrorism, I inter alia, suggest:
Towards a Definition of Terrorism by Ayatullah Shaykh Muhammad ‹Ali Taskhiri
هنوز دیدگاهی داده نشده است.