The Necessity of Defining Terrorism in International Law
Sinem YARGIÇ
Introduction
The necessity of defining terrorism in international law has been one of the main subjects of the legal debate for a long period. Many of the writers have advanced different opinions about the necessity and possibility of reaching a common definition of terrorism in international law. Some of them resembled the search for a single unifying definition as the quest for the Holy Grail or described those who seek a universal definition like Sisyphus.1 The others argued that the concept of terrorism was indefinable or terrorism was a term without legal significance.2
Despite all these arguments, especially after 9/11, it’s clear that the international community should respond urgently to this international problem which threatenes international peace and security. And in order to respond adequately to this common problem which is international by its nature, states should agree on its definition by adopting a general comprehensive universal anti-terrorism convention. Therefore in this article we will try to explain the necessity of adopting a common and comprehensive definition of terrorism in international law by focusing on the international and regional anti-terrorism conventions and its importance for human rights.
I. Lack of Coherence in the Network of Anti-Terrorism Conventions
When we analyse many of the international and regional anti-terrorism conventions that have been adopted until now, we can easily conclude that states have generally prefered to adopt an inductif approach concerning criminalizing terrorism. In other words, a substantial number of these treaties have been agreed to deal with a particular aspect of terrorism instead of dealing with all of the types of terrorism in a comprehensive way. That’s partly because they have been adopted as a reaction to specific terrorist incidents which shocked the international community.
