Certain acts of violence and coercion, no matter what the motive, are outlawed in a number of anti-terrorist conventions. These initially included mainly the phenomenon of 'hijacking' and the placing of bombs which were subject to international condemnation under formal agreements. There now exist a dozen of these UN conventions and protocols. In fact, a possible new one will be discussed next week in New York, based on a draft 'Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism', submitted by India. Article 2 of the revised draft addresses the definition question.
Terrorism is multifaceted.
It often encompasses elements of politics, warfare and propaganda next to its criminal element. Yet so far there has been little political support for a definition of acts of terrorism as peacetime equivalents of war crimes. And sometimes one gains the impression that the lack of consensus on a definition may not result as much from conceptual reasons, confusion as from political factors. The political nature of some forms of terrorism has been a second notable obstacle to enhanced international cooperation. Terrorists themselves stress the political element of their struggle, while law enforcement agencies point to the criminal nature of their activities.