Parsing Definitions of Terrorism

The Abbey in the Oakwood - Caspar David Friedrich

The worst instrument used against a government is Terror. But what is Terrorism?

As previously stated, this blog advocates for a straightforward definition of the instrument:

"The intentional use of violence against civilians or civilian targets in order to attain political aims" 

However there are other definitions, proposed by several scholars, that basically follow the succeeding line of thought:

"Terrorism is the use of, or the threat to use, violence against non-combatants to effect a political change"

And, finally, the EU offers us the undermentioned:

"acts which aim to intimidate populations, compel states to comply with the  perpetrators' demand and/or destabilise the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or a international organisation."

Looking at the first two statements, we will be tempted to think that they are similar; however they are not and, in sooth, one of them presents a huge problem (to be discussed below). By looking at the third statement, we immediately recognise the political fingerprint.

A Quick Parsing Exercise:

What should be understood by civilians? 

According to the Rule 5 of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), civilians are "persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians."

What should be understood by armed forces? 

The Rule 4 of the IHL defines them as being "(..) all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates."

What is a non-combatant? 

It is a member of the armed forces "such as a chaplain or a surgeon, whose duties lie outside combat" (which coincides with the exception in the definition of Combatants, in Rule 3 of the IHL).

Population: the total number of people inhabiting a specific area.
Intimidate: fill with fear; to coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats; frighten or overawe.

When experts define terrorism as the use of violence (or threat to use it) against non-combatants (i.e. medical and religious personnel of the armed forces) they are, in reality, suggesting that attacks against civilians and civilian objects are not to be regarded as terrorism. Certainly, some of you will point out to the fact that dictionaries do offer as a second definition of non-combatants "civilian in wartime"; however, there is an issue with this explanation because a civilian in wartime may spontaneously take up arms to resist invading troops - before having time to form an armed group - and, thus, become a combatant (see levée en masse). This being said, the term "non-combatant" to refer to "civilian in wartime" is subjective and should not be applicable.

When politicians define terrorism as an act that fills the total number of people living in a specific area with fear (or that it coerces them by or as if by threats) they are:

1. purging the lethal characteristic from the act. Terrorism aims at killing civilians first, in order to fill them with fear after. Fright and overawe are a consequence of the lethality of terrorism, not the cause. The first kills are a threat to carry out the next ones.
2. equating civilians to combatants (by using the broad word "population"), when the International Humanitarian Law clearly distinguishes them.
3. confusing the common citizen (i.e. the main target of terrorism) regarding the perceptual meaning of terrorism (is it actually killing and injuring people or does it also include the expression of the intent to commit the act?).

All of the above is a small sample of the complexity behind defining terrorism. Notwithstanding, when scholars and politicians set themselves to concoct a definition they should put aside their intellectual vanity, their political agendas, and ask themselves the following: do surviving victims of terrorism, their relatives and friends, care about how many forms of terrorism there is; do they care about the typology of the phenomenon; do they care about the protection that some believe to be vouchsafed by political ambiguity? Or do they care to know that the international community understands what they went through and, thus, to trust that they will be vindicated by means of the law (so that terrorists won't find safe havens anywhere in the world)?

"Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against civilians or civilian targets in order to attain political aims" 

There: clean, clear, concrete. All the legal basis (around the above definition) can be covered by means of addenda, can't they?