| In trying to
grasp what actually constitutes terrorism, one
finds divergent views of phenomenon of terrorism.
It has generated much debate in social sciences
to have a common definition of terrorism.
A simple definition would be that terrorism is
violence or threatened violence intended to produce
fear or change. In considering legal aspects of
terrorism it is criminal violence violating legal
codes and punishable by the state.
A critical analysis of terrorist acts show that
there are specific political and social factors
behind individual terrorist acts. Similarly terrorism
exercised by different states may be explained
as power of the government used to terrorize its
people into submission. Now why difficulties arise
in reaching a consensus to a common definition?
This can be explained by taking any example of
such activities going on in the world. For example
if there are two groups in a country one in power
and other fighting for it, is it right to say
that the group in submission is the terrorist
group or vice versa. Who is going to decide? Who
has the authority to judge what counts as”
terrorism" and what doesn't? Is there a level
playing field, internationally, for the persecution
of terrorists? The brains working in the United
Nations state that the question of a definition
of terrorism has haunted the debate among States
for decades. There is a famous saying that,
“Terrorists of today are heroes of tomorrow”
There are more than hundred definitions of this
word terrorism and a single definition cannot
account for all the possible uses of the term.
|