Terrorism is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation,
especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” We quickly see that this definition is
unspecific and subjective. The issue of subjectivity in this case means that there is no
internationally recognized legal definition of terrorism. Despite considerable discussion, the
formation of a comprehensive convention against international terrorism by the United Nations
has always been impeded by the lack of consensus on a definition.
To be considered an act of terrorism, an action must be violent, or threaten violence. As such,
political dissent, activism, and nonviolent resistance do not constitute terrorism. There are,
however, many instances around the world of authorities restricting individuals’ freedom of
expression under the pretext of counter-terrorism measures. Human rights groups, such
as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, publish reports on such cases of censorship.
The inclusion of damage to private and public property in the definition of terrorism is a point of
contention, but it is generally accepted in legal and statistical contexts.
An action must also be carried out for political, economic, religious, or social purposes to count
as terrorism. For example, the terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
has clearly stated its political goal to establish itself as a caliphate. Likewise, attacks perpetrated
by white extremists have discernable sociopolitical motivations, and so are considered acts of
terrorism. By contrast, violent acts committed without a political, economic, religious or social
goal are not classified as terrorism, but instead as ‘violent crimes’
To be classified as terrorism, actions must be designed to have far-reaching psychological
repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target. In other words, an action must aim to
create terror through “it’s shocking brutality, lack of discrimination, dramatic or symbolic quality
and disregard of the rules of warfare”.
Additionally, targeting noncombatant, neutral, or randomly chosen people – generally, people
not engaged in hostilities – is a necessary but not sufficient condition to constitute terrorism. The
US State Department includes in the definition of ‘noncombatant’, “military personnel who at
the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.” They “also consider as acts of terrorism
attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities
does not exist at the site.” As such, actions during open combat, where a state of military
hostility exists, do not constitute terrorism.
Terrorist actions must be also conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of
