TERRORISM AS A CHALLENGE TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES FROM PEACE AND SECURITY PERSPECTIVE

Presentation Made by: PSUPT NOEL VERSOZA PSINSP JUVENAL BARBOSA PSINSP DENNIS ORBISTA SPO2 Rogelio Cruz San Juan

In Partial fulfilment of the Requirements of the Course: MAPSS 214 (Trends, Issues and Problems on International Peace and Disarmament) Presented to: Atty. Rustico T. De Belen, MNSA, LLM, Ph.D.

There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3] Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[4]These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, allencompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[5] In the meantime, the international community adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. In addition, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "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 circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the

Page |1

considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[6] A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[7]Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".[8] As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.[9][10] In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Bll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression.[3][4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of terrorism.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9] Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of

Page |2

violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. Thesymbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals.[11] "Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[12] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French wordterrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terre meaning I frighten.[13] The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbritribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[14][15] After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.[8] Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people[16] by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.[17] This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[18] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" ( ) in 1869.[19] In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[20] TYPES OF TERRORISM: Civil disorder A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political terrorism Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes. Non-Political terrorism Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective. TYPES OF TERRORISM: Quasi-terrorism The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction.[74] For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.

Page |3

TYPES OF TERRORISM: Limited political terrorism Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state. Official or state terrorism "referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions. It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy. Several sources have further defined the typology of terrorism: Political terrorism Sub-state terrorism Social revolutionary terrorism Nationalist-separatist terrorism Religious extremist terrorism Religious fundamentalist Terrorism New religions terrorism Right-wing terrorism Left-wing terrorism Single-issue terrorism State-sponsored terrorism Regime or state terrorism Criminal terrorism Pathological terrorism

Counter-terrorism (also spelled counterterrorism) incorporates the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments,militaries, police departments and corporations adopt to attack terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed. The tactic of terrorism is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing. If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counterinsurgency doctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defense (FID) is a term used for programs either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop. Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the response to related events.

Page |4

Most counter-terrorism strategies involve an increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional:interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. New technology has, however, expanded the range of military and law enforcementoperations. Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin or religion, which is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds. Homegrown terrorists, especially lone wolves are often harder to detect because of their citizenship or legal alien status and ability to stay under the radar. To select the effective action when terrorism appears to be more of an isolated event, the appropriate government organizations need to understand the source, motivation, methods of preparation, and tactics of terrorist groups. Good intelligence is at the heart of such preparation, as well as political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, a very difficult challenge for HUMINT because operational terrorist cells are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related.[1] Counterintelligence is a great challenge with the security of cell-based systems, since the ideal, but nearly impossible, goal is to obtain aclandestine source within the cell. Financial tracking can play a role, as can communications intercept, but both of these approaches need to be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy. One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist measures is the waning of civil liberties and individual privacy that such measures often entail, both for citizens of, and for those detained by states attempting to combat terror. At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as abuses of power or even violations of human rights. Examples of these problems can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of people between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach principles of non-discrimination.[3] Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat.[3] Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism.[4] This suggests, as proponents of human security have long argued, that respecting human rights may indeed help us to incur security. Amnesty International included a section on confronting terrorism in the recommendations in the Madrid Agenda arising from the Madrid Summit on Democracy and Terrorism (Madrid 811 March 2005): Democratic principles and values are essential tools in the fight against terrorism. Any successful strategy for dealing with terrorism requires terrorists to be isolated. Consequently, the preference must be to treat terrorism as criminal acts to be handled through existing systems of law enforcement and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We recommend: (1) taking effective measures to make impunity impossible either for acts of terrorism or for the abuse of human rights in counter-

Page |5

terrorism measures. (2) the incorporation of human rights laws in all anti-terrorism programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies."[4] While international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, proponents of human rights (as well as human security) have suggested that more effort needs to be given to the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation. They argue that international human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine its effectiveness in the international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism.[3] Some countries see preemptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. This includes capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, while Western European states generally do not. Another major method of preemptive neutralization is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists to obtain information about specific plots, targets, the identity of other terrorists, whether or not the interrogation subjects himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes more extreme methods are used to increase suggestibility, such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or due to the confusion brought on by it. These methods are not tolerated by European powers. In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Ireland v. United Kingdom case that such methods amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, and that such practices were in breach of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights Article 3 (art. 3). Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries like Pakistan where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya. Military intervention has not always successful in stopping or preventing future terrorism, like during the Malayan Emergency, the Mau Mau Uprising, and most of the campaigns against the IRAduring the Irish Civil War, the S-Plan, the Border Campaign (IRA) and the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Although military action can disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it sometimes doesn't end the threat completely.[6] CONCLUSION: "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, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and the same always pose as a challenge to peace and security of many nations.

Page |6

"It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the Highlevel Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly."[46]

Presentation Made by: PSUPT NOEL VERSOZA PSINSP JUVENAL BARBOSA PSINSP DENNIS ORBISTA SPO2 Rogelio Cruz San Juan

In Partial fulfilment of the Requirements of the Course: MAPSS 214 (Trends, Issues and Problems on International Peace and Disarmament) Presented to: Atty. Rustico T. De Belen, MNSA, LLM, Ph.D.

REFERENCES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Security_Gateway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_cycle_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-intelligence_and_counter-terrorism_organizations http://www.un.org/terrorism/strategy-counter-terrorism.shtml http://www.mott.org/grantsandguidelines/ForGrantees/patriotact/background http://www.rileycountyks.gov/index.aspx?NID=213 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/counterterrorism_research_report_72.pdf http://dawn.com/2011/03/27/anti-terrorism-measures/ http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Antiterrorism_measures_agreed_upon_in_Abu_Dhabi.html?cid=34190064 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

Page |7