By:

Dr. Ali S. Awadh Asseri

(Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon)

     In fact, the very complex nature of the subject of terrorism implies that there has to be multiplicity and diversity in its explanation. In other words, it is possible that while discussing terrorism, or any of its important aspects, each argument may have a counter-argument. For example, state-sponsored terrorism is generally explained as a situation in which a state supports a non-state actor conducting terrorist activities in another state. However, this is only partly true as there may be instances when a state supports another state suppressing its own people. Consider another example: one of the justifications offered by non-state actors engaged in terrorist acts is that they are just responding to terrorist acts by the state. In this context, a counter-argument is that if terrorism by non-state actors is really a reaction to state terrorism, then why have most of the recent acts of terrorism by non-state actors occurred in Western democracies where citizens have all possible avenues for peaceful political expression? The debate does not stop here since the above counter-argument can be further countered by arguing that, in so far as the courses of contemporary terrorism are concerned, they may not necessarily pertain to the domestic political system of a country, but may be essentially linked to its foreign policy.

            Likewise, we can expect the debate about defining terrorism to continue reflecting a variety of perspectives. To sum up the above discussion, even if a theoretical definition of terrorism lacks international consensus, at least its main elements and attributes are generally accepted. Accordingly, terrorism is an organized, deliberate and politically motivated act of violence targeting unarmed civilians with the purpose of spreading fear in a targeted audience. The main dispute over the definition of terrorism remains on identifying the culprits, which in almost all the existing definitions of terrorism offered by governments, academics, and international organizations are presumed to be non-state actors. Since states have a monopoly over the use of force under international law, they will always be reluctant to include the word 'state' in the section of terrorism definition identifying various perpetrators of terrorism. To overcome such problems, we can contextualize the definition and explanation of terrorism on a case-to-case basis.