First of all one needs to decide what comes under terrorism: any act of terrorism or crime by a particular nation.

There is a difference between conflict and crime, conflict could be national or international but crime could be personal...and terrorism is definitely an international conflict which suffered lots of nations.

For understanding and analyzing conflict in international perspective we need to understand histyorical and political context of conflict as well as geo-political scenario as well of nations suffereing from terrorism

Distance of one-dimensional view of the phenomenon of terrorism and security if we do not just look at it.

Terrorism comes in many and different forms. An act is terrorist act when it meets the between five and seven criteria including spreading terror, be politically motivated etc. To analysis terrorism it is first necessary to define terrorism and equally important to define what it is not.

I agree that whenever talking about terrorism it is key to define what you are referring to. Most serious definitions include four cornerstones in their definition: a) presence of a political/religious/societal/etc. motivation (i.e., a greater good worth fighting for). b) use or threats of violence. c) sub-national actors (i.e., states and theri representatives cannot engage in terror acts). d) spreading of fear beyond the immediate target. what distinguishes terrorism from crime is that the attack as such is just a means to achiev the greater goal.

Moreover, terrorism is not "definitely an international conflict". In fact about 8 out of 10 terror attack are purely domestic, i.e., the perpetrator, the victim and the place of the attack all share the same nationality.

Regarding determinants of terrorism: political attributes - in particular foreign policy broadly defined - have been documented to be particularly important drivers of terrorism.

Hi Martin,

I was interested in your four cornerstones particularly c ( states and their representatives cannot engage in terror acts). I would strongly advocate that there is a action called state terrorism and this act is perpetrated by states or their representatives. The drone programme currently undertaken by the US government is an act of state terrorism while it may also be part of a counter-terrorism strategy it still is politically motivated, spread fear amongst a community as well as the intended victims, there is use of a threat of violence.

The origin of terrorism is state terrorism and the oldest recoding acts of terrorism are related to the state and while it may not be politically correct to define or discuss state terrorism it is very prominent post 9/11

Hi Christine,

your example points to one of the key issues surrounding terrorism: everyone thinks of something differently when using the term "terrorism". Thus it is crucial to define what one is talking about before making statements on terrorism. The cornerstones I was mentioning are in place for most scientific definitions of the term "terrorism" (and thus also of most databases). The scientific usage of the term of course differs sometimes greatly form the usage of the media or the general public.

I am not saying it is not worth talking about state's reactions to terrorism - quite to the contrary it is a very interesting topic! I am simply saying it is a different set of actions and should not be lumped together. That the two sets are interrelated is obvious. They are not the same, however.

A state can actively or passively support, condone, finance, turn a blind eye to terrorism, but I don't believe a state can commit acts of terrorism.

I think this is a technicality though, since states clearly engage in all of the activities which would be "terrorism" if they were carried out by sub-state entities, but which are in practice covered by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law.

If a state carries out activities in its own country that would otherwise be terrorism then again, it is not terrorism, but it is going to be covered by (for example) the laws on genocide.

Thankyou all for your valuable comments, actually I am intended to study terrorism for last decade and all these comments will help me in developing my proposal. Thanks once again.

Hi Simon,

Have a read of the article attached regarding state terrorism particularly with regards to North South breakdown.

State terrorism can be carried out both internally and externally the states territory. However it is not often discussed as state terrorism states justify its use as part of the Just War Theory or Total War Theory which in some measure covers UN Article 2 (4).

What should be taken into account is that states define terrorism and it is not in their best interests to define terrorism too tightly let alone defining state terrorism. In many ways the UK and US are the main proponents of state terrorism post 9/11

Sorry I forgot to attach the article

Hi Martin,

Yes the terrorism and state terrorism are different acts and they can be inter-related. Yes I do understand the four cornerstones of terrorism that is common to the majority of definition on terrorism. However, I do believe that the title of terrorism has different components include state, internal and external terrorism. I do believe it is important to consider all components when discussing terrorism as a broad topic.

yes the state terrorism is different from terrorism ... terrorism could be domestic or international but state terrorism is different in an aspect that mostly state funded agencies or groups are involoved in spreading terrorism across. In that particular case certain hidden agendas are invovled ranging from economical to regional resources. But there are different intentions and definitions associated with the word terrorism and these are directely related to agendas which different groups have to achieve.

Agreed, It would also appear that state terrorism is often committed in the name of counter-terrorism policies which have been developed using the Just War Theory particularly with regards to the US and UK

In regards to terrorism it s also important to recognise that in recent times terrorism has been associated with non state actors and yet governments have been unable to agree on a definition of exactly what terrorism consists of.

Hi all,

Been busy on other things for a couple of months, but have now had chance to read the article by Ruth Blakely which Christine recommended, and it does make some good points.

Blakely's criticism of Wilkinson for only mentioning "marxit-Leninist regimes and their client insugencies" whilst ignoring the equivalent by right-wing states is spot on. Absolutely the US has orchestrated and backed coups, has been complicit in the repression of the South, and uses "local elites to carry out its objectives" in the South (p232), and other states, western Eastern Capitalist, Communist , Other have done exactly the same, many times over.

I still hold to the point that the state itself cannot commit the act of terror , but it can sponsor, arm, orchestrate, encourage (etc) their "client insurgencies."

I'm not, of course, making a dichotomy between "terorrism" and "acceptable behaviour" by states - drone strikes, torture, genocide and other actions are clearly not acceptable actions and should be condemned by right-thinking people worldwide.

We're not close to an internationally agreed definiton, and the current UN/OIC stalemate about the definition hinges around the ongoing "terrorist v freedom fighter" isses.

I actually think it is a red herring, that has been confusing the issue for decades, and that we don't need a definiton at all.

If the UN or ICC had any teeth at all (and that's a whole different debate) we could make bombings, murder, torture, etc all criminal acts (oh, wait a minute...) regardless of who carried them out. That way, if a state carries out an unaccpetable and illegal act, we don't have to tie ourselves in knots arguing about whether it is terorrism or not, but can prosecute accordingly.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Each group, organization, individual and state defines the term “terrorism” according to their perception, interest and perceived threat. Reading general conclusion on the definition of terrorism has generated much debate in social sciences and internationally.

Terrorism is the most popular phenomena these days around the world. All governments are excessively using and propagating the term terrorism in order to diminish importance of their opponents.

Propose Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism is a systematic and repeated violent action, employed by individual or, group, sub-national group, clandestine agents against civilian population (assassination, kidnapping or hostage-taking etc) to create fear and intermediation in order to attain political, social, economical, religious or ideological objectives.

I would like to add, that state terrorism in the worse one, and the world is facing threat from this kind of terrorism., where the powerful justify their acts of aggression against the weaker.The multinational organizations are supporting the powerful states aggression with their own definitions; because these organizations are getting funds from these powerful countries.

I think there are a couple finer points to Martin's definition above that I would add. First, as several note, states can engage in terrorism. We just lack any decent event data from the state side. CIRI and PTS are the best we have and they are rough cuts. Just because a state does an action doesn't make that action a priori different/better/worse than when a non-state actor does it. Second, there are really three actors involved in a conflict involving terrorism: the perpetrator, the victim, and the audience for the violence. This separates terrorism from genocide, interstate war (at times), and other forms of political violence where the victim and the audience are often the same actor.

A more extended treatment by myself and co-author, Mike Findley, Here:

http://nw18.american.edu/~jyoung/documents/young_findley_isr_2011.pdf

One area that need a whole more thought/work is the interaction of different forms of political violence, why some are complementary, some substitutes, when we see one and not the other, etc.