TERRORISM

Terrorism

Terrorism

UK definition of Terrorism

The new global jurisdiction of the Terrorism Bill makes it important that the U.K. definition complies with global instruments. The current U.K. definition of terrorism includes "serious damage to property" as action falling within the definition of Clause 1, without specifying what constitutes serious. It goes beyond both the current EU Directive and the suggestions of the report of the high level panel. Section D of Clause 164 of the UN report contains what would seem to be the crucial elements of the offence.

A definition that followed the spirit of that offered by the Secretary General in his UN report would have the merit both of international recognition, and of including violence towards people, while excluding damage to property. Including an element of reckless indifference as well as specific intention would probably be necessary to cover situations where damage to property could also endanger human life. Charges of criminal damage could be used to prosecute offences where there is no such intention or recklessness.[5]A very similar definition was offered as a backbench amendment at Second Reading of the Terror Bill, but without the safeguard of incorporating recklessness.

Introduction

Who has been affected the most by all this? The Youth! The international military dispute to US power is framed in particularist, religious, nationalist and historical language; the youth reject any sense of global solidarity against oppression. On the western side, state policies have equally fallen back on particularist rhetoric and practice - whether in the appeals of the US president after 9/11 to “American values”, the Russian invocation of a right to a worldwide attack on its enemies after the Chechen infanticide of September 2004, or the instinctive appeal to “European values” by European Union states in the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 bombings in Madrid (Martin 7).

All this has struck a severe rage at what had been a growing world agreement prior to 11 September 2001, namely the belief in international institutions, international norms, and international law (not least with regard to human rights and the conduct of armed conflict).

The deterioration is evident. The United States under George W Bush has openly discarded the claims of international law, for example those of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the treatment of prisoners-of-war. The rhetoric of al-Qaeda is even more anti-universalist; it is laced with Arab nationalist motifs, virulent attacks on fellow Muslims who are Shi'a, and a total contempt - celebrated in bloodthirsty proclamations and macabre videos - for general principles in relation to the conduct of armed conflict in the modern age. All this has created a gap between the youths of the 21st century.

This refusal of universalism has been supported by a widespread development in nationalism, in both the developed and underdeveloped worlds. Anatol Lieven's open Democracy essay (and book) America Right or Wrong acutely analyses this trend amongst the youth in the context of the United States, where the current presidential election campaign is marked by affirmations of national greatness and the ...