There is no universally accepted definition of the term ‘terrorism’, despite, efforts from international organisations such as the United Nations Organisation to set one for politico-legal purposes. However, the dispute in defining the term extends to academia. It is necessary to define terrorism to be able to create stronger responses and counter-terrorism frameworks and laws. However, the field of terrorism develops a counter to even seemingly the most elemental question of terrorism; defining it. [1]  

Terrorism is both a global and a domestic concern affecting countries and communities across the globe. The 9/11 attacks in the United States, the 2008 Mumbai attacks in India, and the 2015 Paris attacks in France were carried out by international terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Domestic terrorism has also been a major concern for nations across the world, white supremacists, anti-government militias, and extremist religious groups have carried out terrorist attacks in countries such as the United States, Germany, and Sri Lanka. [2]  

Domestic terrorism can take many forms such as bombings, shootings, and cyber-attacks. Prominent examples include the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, and LTTE in Sri Lanka(when it was a terrorist organisation).

Terrorism has often been defined from the perspective of states and Western scholars further complicating issues since states too have engaged in terroristic activities or tactics. Despite, terrorism being a highly subjective notion depending on the multitude of standpoints which exist, there are various elements of such actions/groups/tactics which can safely be clubbed with identifying its meaning. A few definitions of terrorism are as follows:

The FBI(USA) defines terrorism as, “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). [3]

The European Union defines terrorism for legal/official purposes in Article 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002). “This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which… any act; or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization.”[4]

 UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) gives a definition: criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

These definitions are however, given by nation-states and are from the perspective of a state-to-sub-state level therefore, other definitions must also be looked at to gain deeper insights into a more holistic understanding. Despite, having a multitude of definitions, there are notions and tactics which are generally attributed to terrorism with broader acceptance, such as extra-normal violence, the climate of fear, political motivation and potential threat creation.

Creating a climate of fear

Terrorism is a subset of political violence; it is not the same as other forms of politically motivated violence such as wars, insurgencies and so on. There are various parameters which we can use to identify these differences and further our understanding of terrorism too. Targets are one key aspect when looking at terroristic actions. The target is more symbolic; it is never limited to the victims of the attack. [5] Boko Haram operations in Nigeria involving the kidnapping of school-going children were not about the children they were never the target audience even though they are the literal targets of these kidnappings. These kidnappings created a climate of fear in regions not just where Boko Haram operated but also where they could attack affecting school-going girls across the Chad Basin, affecting non-Muslims across the basin.

When compared to the target of a war it is between two or more groups of states and at large is limited to fighting and attacking combatants. Bombings and air raids might affect civilians however, they are never attacked to be the primary target in wars(although considered to be futile in the contemporary world). Wars are usually fought because of political and territorial objectives or due to alliances, or pre-emptive strikes. Wars can be seen to be accompanied by acts of terrorism or even vice versa, case in point Agent Orange employed by the USA during the Vietnam War or the LTTE a terror gaining more legitimacy than the Sri Lankan government at a point in time during the civil war. Wars are interstate whereas, civil wars are intrastate; it is a very close distinction we see even though terrorism rarely causes civil wars, in civil wars targets are usually a rebelling force large enough to counter the pre-existing government.

Another closely related term is insurgencies, insurgencies are often the precursor to civil wars depending on the scale of the rebellion, however, civil wars target the claim to legitimacy whereas, in the case of insurgencies, it is to weaken the legitimacy of the state in the specific territorial bounds.[6] Insurgents often employ the war of positions along with the war of manoeuvre against the state the target here being first ideological in nature and second reduction of legitimacy. Guerrilla warfare’s targets are almost always the armies as guerrilla fighters such as Naxals in India(early stages) have control over a territory and actively engage in combat usually against the state.[7] In this case they even actively attack the state to gain more control however, are not big enough to be considered insurgents or motivate civil war.[8]

Intent is another key differentiator between all these forms of politically motivated violence[9]. Terrorism is intended to create fear and intimidate a population or government to inspire or achieve certain political objectives, whereas other forms of politically motivated violence may have different goals, such as assassinations, sabotage, or guerrilla warfare. Terrorism, therefore, has the said intention of creating a climate of fear, 9/11 still haunts Americans. [10]Wars, however, are seen to be more between governments, The Ukraine-Russia war, war might have various factors at play but usually have a clear winner and a loser in terms of changes and effects and affect a war causes, this is not the case in terroristic actions. Civil wars intend to take over the government’s case in point the American Civil War like any typical civil war was fought to take control of power(legitimacy). Insurgencies can have multiple intentions be they ideological, case in point Marxists in Europe in the early 20th century to end political repression or ethnographic reasons for instance the Naxalite movement in India in the middle of the 20th century. Guerrilla warfare has the evident intention of fighting off any invaders and exercising control over the land controlled by the group and increasing resistance.

Terrorism and political agendas

Terrorists often have a specific political or ideological agenda/manifesto that they seek to promote through violence. Other forms of politically motivated violence may be motivated by different factors, such as economic or personal grievances. This is why serial killers would not be considered terrorists or why hate crimes although similar in terms of the effect to the society and with the right media coverage outcome to the society is not a terrorist acts. A mass shooter also is not a terrorist by this standard even if they make such claims lone wolf attacks can have various claims however if the raison d'être of these attacks is personal biases or motivations and not a larger political ideology these cannot be terroristic. Wars have been fought on ideological grounds; Vietnam is an ideal example. Civil wars are only fought on ideological differences and so are insurgencies.

Terrorist attacks often involve the use of high-profile, symbolic targets and tactics that are designed to generate media attention and create a sense of fear and panic, such as bombings or mass shootings.[11] Other forms of politically motivated violence may use different methods, such as cyber-attacks, protests, or strikes. War involves the use of organized military forces, which may employ a wide range of tactics, including air strikes, artillery bombardment, ground combat, and naval operations. Terrorism, on the other hand, typically involves the use of unconventional tactics, such as suicide bombings, assassinations, or hostage-taking. 

Terrorism tends to be more episodic, with attacks occurring sporadically over time and are very cost-effective.[12] Wars/Civil can last for years involve multiple battles, and campaigns and are extremely costly. Insurgencies, on the other hand, can last for years or even decades, with skirmishes, and campaigns and require a strong ideological movement in place stemming from social movements. Therefore, state-sponsored terrorism is often employed by smaller or weaker states to weaken bigger or stronger nations as it is more cost effective than traditional war. One of the most prominent examples of this could be the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan.

The distinction between terrorism and other types of politically motivated violence may be made by taking into account these aspects. The distinctions between these groups, however, can occasionally be hazy, and many organisations and people may use violence for various causes and in various settings.

Terrorism is often seen to be a by-product of or even a tactic of war. [13] The efficacy of this tactic is what is always under question since terrorist groups can't be able to predict the reactions to their acts on nations. This explains why terrorism is used when success is extremely unlikely because the terrorist group's chances are already stacked against them. Extremist groups may have chosen to use terrorism instead of alternative strategies due to various odds against their goals. Or even their reliance on extremely brutal acts or reliance on publicity to both spread fear but also garner support in the form of recruits and gain legitimacy. [14] 

At the same time, it is important to remember these actions are not restrictive to solely substate actors; states have been known to perform not just illegal and criminal actions but also illegitimate acts of violence against populations of their own countries or others. [15]

(The author has his formal training in political science and has a specialization in foreign policy, economics, climate justice and the north-south divide. Views are personal. He can be contacted at anurajs1248@gmail.com )

[1] Schmid, A. (2004). Terrorism-the definitional problem. Case W. Res. J. Int'l L., 36, 375.

[2] There this is not limited to being an issue of the global north or south it might be more prevalent(even though this is true however, these acts are more publicized in the North) in the Global North since it has greater potential to make an impact.

[3] FBI. (2010, May 21). Terrorism 2002/2005. FBI. Retrieved March 31, 2023, from https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

[4] 32002F0475. EUR. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2023, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32002F0475

[5] Kydd, A. H., & Walter, B. F. (2006). The strategies of terrorism. International security, 31(1), 49-80.

[6] Byman, D. L. (2022, March 9). How war drives terrorism. Brookings. Retrieved March 31, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/06/23/how-war-drives-terrorism/

[7] Balagopal, K. (1997). Naxalite terrorists and benign policemen.

[8] Perliger, A., & Pedahzur, A. (2011). Social network analysis in the study of terrorism and political violence. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 45-50.

[9] Fletcher, G. P. (2006). The indefinable concept of terrorism. Journal of international criminal justice, 4(5), 894-911.

[10] Rana, A. (2021, September 10). Perspective | 9/11 didn't change everything. old fights and illusions still haunted us. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2023, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/09/911-attacks-change-everything/

[11] Archetti, C., & Archetti, C. (2013). Terrorism, communication, and the media. Understanding Terrorism in the Age of Global Media: A Communication Approach, 32-59.

[12] Williams, L. K., Koch, M. T., & Smith, J. M. (2013). The political consequences of terrorism: Terror events, casualties, and government duration. International Studies Perspectives, 14(3), 343-361.

[13] Coadγ, C. T. (2004). Defining terrorism. Terrorism: the philosophical issues, 3-14.

[14] Krueger, A. B. (2008). What makes a terrorist. In What Makes a Terrorist. Princeton University Press.

[15] Bruce, G. (2013). Definition of terrorism social and political effects. Journal of Military and Veterans Health, 21(2), 26-30.