The Definitional Struggle Of The International Counterterrorism Regime: Can Institutional Deference Solve The Problem?

Abstract

A feature of modern terrorism is its truly global scale. In the case of the attacks on September 11th 2001, it was planned in mostly in Afghanistan, occurred within the territory of the United States by 19 individuals of four different nationalities (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon) resulting in nearly 3,000 immediate victims of various national, ethnic and societal backgrounds.

The transnational characteristic of terrorism has triggered an array of international mechanisms to prevent, deter and punish terrorist acts. But ironically, the international society has been doing this without a common definition. Even for the most well-rounded definition available in the existing counterterrorism regime which has the support of 189 States, reservations against it by a number of States and declarations by others questioning the legality of such reservations reflects the unsettled disagreements between States on a comprehensive definition. The absence of a comprehensive definition of terrorism has also cultivated a regime that is significantly fragmented both in terms of governance and law.