Advertisement

Netherlands International Law Review

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 57–84 | Cite as

Attempts to Define ‘Terrorism’ in International Law

  • Ben Saul
Article

Keywords

International Criminal Court International Criminal Rome Statute Terrorist Activity Vienna Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Refences

  1. 1.
    The international and regional treaties are available at: <http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp>.
  2. 2.
    S. Witten, ‘The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings’, 92 AJIL (1998) p. 774 at p. 775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Lambert, Terrorism and Hostages in International Law: A Commentary on the Hostages Convention 1979 (Cambridge, Grotius 1990) p. 49.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1998) p. 12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    League of Nations (LoN), Committee of Experts for the Codification of International Criminal Law, Replies of Governments 1927, LoN Doc. C.196.M.70.1927.V, p. 221.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terrorism was discussed at the 3rd (Brussels 1930), 4th (Paris 1931), 5th (Madrid 1933) and 6th (Copenhagen 1935) International Conferences for the Unification of Criminal Law: G. Bouthoul, ‘Definitions of Terrorism’,in D. Carlton and C. Schaerf, eds., International Terrorism and World Security (London, Croom Helm 1975) p. 72; B. Zlataric, ‘History of International Terrorism and its Legal Control’, in M.C. Bassiouni, ed., International Terrorism and Political Crimes (Springfield, Illinois, Charles C.Thomas 1975) p. 474 at pp. 478–482; T. Franck and B. Lockwood, ‘Preliminary Thoughts towards an International Convention on Terrorism’, 68 AJIL (1974) p. 69 at pp. 75–76.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Final Commission Proposal, quoted in Zlataric, op. cit. n. 7, at p. 479.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zlataric, op. cit. n. 7, at p. 479.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Definitions quoted in Zlataric, op.cit. n.7, at pp. 479–480.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid., at p. 480.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Ibid., at p. 480.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Ibid, at p. 481.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    LoN Committee for the International Repression of Terrorism (CIRT), ‘Texts adopted by the 6th International Conference for the Unification of Criminal Law (Copenhagen, 31 Aug–3 Sept 1935)’, Geneva, 7 January 1936, LoN Doc. CRT.17 (‘Copenhagen Draft’).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quoted in Zlataric, op. cit. n. 7, at p. 482.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Including instigating a catastrophe or calamity, polluting drinking water, spreading contagious diseases, destroying public utilities and using explosives in a public place.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Copenhagen Draft, supra n. 16, at p. 1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    LoN (CIRT), ‘Preliminary Draft Convention drawn up by the Executive Bureau of the International Criminal Police Commission’, Geneva, 11 April 1935, LoN Doc. CRT.3 (‘Vienna Draft’), p. 9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Copenhagen Draft, supra n. 16, at p. 1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Donnedieu De Vabres, ‘La repression internationale du terrorisme — les conventions de Genève (16 novembre 1937)’, 62 Rev. D Int. Lég. Comp. (1938) p. 45; G. Marston, ‘Early Attempts to Suppress Terrorism: The Terrorism and International Criminal Court Conventions of 1937’, 73 BYIL (2002) p. 293; P. Kovacs, ‘La Société des Nations et son action après l’attentat contre Alexandre, roi de Yougoslavie’, 6 J History International L (2004) p. 65; J. Starke, ‘The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism’, 19 BYIL (1938) p. 214; B. Saul, ‘The Legal Response of the League of Nations to Terrorism’, J International Criminal Justice (forthcoming 2005).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Walters, A History of the League of Nations (London, Oxford University Press 1969) p. 599.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    In re Pavelic and Kwaternik, Ann. Dig, and Reports of PIL Cases (1933–34), Case No. 158, p. 372; B. Ferencz, An International Criminal Court, Vol. I (London, Oceana Publications 1980) p. 48; Walters, op. cit. n. 23, at p. 602.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cited in R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex p Cheng [1973] AC 931.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walters, op. cit. n. 23, at p. 604.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zlataric, op. cit. n. 7, at p. 481.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walters, op. cit. n. 23, at pp. 244–255.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., at pp. 246, 600.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    LoN (CIRT), Geneva, 10 April 1935, LoN Doc. CRT 1.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    1st Session, April7#x2013;May 1935; 2nd Session, January 1936; 3rd Session, April 1937. Members included Belgium, UK, Chile, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, USSR, Spain and Switzerland.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    By virtue of the place of preparation or execution, or the nationality of perpetrators or victims: LoN, International Conference Proceedings on the Repression of Terrorism, Geneva, 1–16 November 1937, LoN Doc. C.94.M.47.1938.V, annex I, p. 183.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    LoN (CIRT), Reports to Council, Geneva: 1st Session (8 May 1935, LoN Doc. C.184.M.102.1935.V); 2nd Session (10 February 1936, LoN Doc. A.7.1936.V); 3rd Session (26 April 1937, LoN Doc. V. Legal 1937.V.1); see also LoN Assembly (17th Ordinary Session), Records 7#x2014; Committee Mtgs (1st Committee: Constitutional and Legal Questions), Geneva, LoN OJ (1936) (Special Suppl.) p. 156.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    LoN Final Act of Conference, Geneva, 16 November 1937, LoN Doc. C.548.M385.1937.V; 19 LoN OJ (1938) p. 23, in Y. Alexander, et al., eds., Control of Terrorism: International Documents (New York, Crane Russak 1979) p. 19; Ferencz, op. cit. n. 24, at p. 380.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    1937 League Convention, in International Conference Proceedings, supra n. 32, annex I, p. 5; and 1937 Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal Court, in International Conference Proceedings, supra, n. 32. The latter treaty attracted fewer signatories and never came into force. A State Party was entitled, instead of prosecuting, or extraditing a suspect to another State Party, to send the suspect for trial before the international criminal court.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    European states: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Yugoslavia. American states: Argentina, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Peru, Venezuela. Other regions: USSR, Turkey, (British) India and Egypt, along with a small state, Estonia. Monaco subsequently signed: Starke, op. cit. n. 22, at p. 214.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Starke, ibid., at p. 215.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    3rd Session Report, supra n. 33, at p. 2; 1st Committee Records, supra n. 33, at p. 30 (Romania), p. 36 (Yugoslavia), p. 38 (Sweden); LoN (CIRT), Observations by Governments (Series I), 7 September 1936, LoN Doc. A.24.1936.V (Norway); LoN (CIRT), Observations by Governments, 30 March 1937, LoN Doc. C.194.M.139.1937.V, pp. 1–2 (Czechoslovakia); Letters from H. McKinnnon-Wood (UK Foreign Office,Geneva) to L. Brass (UK Home Office, London) and J. Fischer-Williams (Oxford), 30 March 1937, LoN Archives Geneva Doc. 3A/20521/15085/XIX.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Including wilfully: ‘causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty’ to protected persons and public officials (Art. 2(1)); destroying or damaging public property of another state (Art. 2(2)); endangering the lives of the public (Art. 2(3)); attempting to commit offences (Art. 2(4)); manufacturing, obtaining, possessing, or supplying arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with a view to committing an offence in any country (Art. 2(5)); and conspiracy, incitement, direct public incitement, wilful participation, and knowing assistance (Art. 3).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    International Conference Proceedings, supra n. 32, at p. 72 (Yugoslavia), p. 63 (Spain).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    LoN CIRT, ‘Legislation regarding political terrorist crimes: Study by T. Givenovitch’, Geneva, 3 May 1935, LoN Doc. CRT.9, p. 4.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    International Conference Proceedings, supra n. 32, at p. 81 (Yugoslavia), p. 80 (Spain), p. 78 (France).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    1st Committee Records, supra n. 33, at p. 32 (Belgium); Observations by Governments (1937), supra n. 38, at p. 2 (Czechoslovakia); 2nd Session Report, supra n. 33, appendix III, p. 16 (Romania).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Observations by Governments (1937), supra n. 38, at p. 3 (Czechoslovakia); 1st Committee Records, supra n. 33, at p. 45 (Romania); International Conference Proceedings, supra n. 32, at p. 77 (Netherlands), p. 75 (Poland).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid., at pp. 757–76 (UK, USSR, Poland).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    As proposed in the 2nd Session Draft, Art. 2, in 2nd Session Report, supra n. 33; and by the UK: CIRT, ‘Suggestion by the British expert for an article to be inserted in the draft convention’, Geneva, 1 May 1935, LoN Archives Doc. 3A/17592/15085/VII.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    International Conference Proceedings, supra n. 32, at p. 72 (Yugoslavia) and 2nd Session Report, supra n. 33, appendix III, p. 15 (Romania).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    2nd Session Report, supra n. 33, appendix III, p. 14.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    E. Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes (London, Abacus 1995) p. 68.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Letter from the Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (Prague) to CIRT (Geneva), 30 October 1937, LoN Archives Doc. 3A/15105/15085/XIII.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    1937 League Convention, Art. 8.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    1st Committee Records, supra n. 33, at p. 40 (UK); International Conference Proceedings, supra n. 32, at p. 53 (UK), p. 54 (Norway), p. 62 (Belgium); Observations by Governments (Series I), supra n. 38, at p. 3 (Belgium).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    1st Committee Records, supra n. 33, at p. 48 (Finland), p. 37 (Norway), p. 39 (Netherlands), p. 41 (Sweden, France), pp. 33, 43 (Belgium); Observations by Governments (Series I), supra n. 38, at p. 11 (Netherlands).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walters, op. cit. n. 23, at p. 605.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Starke, op. cit. n. 22, at p. 215.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Quoted in I. Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1963) p. 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    See below, section 4.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    UNGA Res. 49/60 (1994), annexed Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, para. 3.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    T v. Home Secretary [1996] AC 742, at pp. 772–773 (Lord Mustill).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    1954 ILC Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind (Part I), in ILC 6th Session Report (3 June–28 July 1954), UN Doc. A/2693, as requested by UNGA Res. 177(II) (1947).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-II) p. 59.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    1950 Draft Code, crime no. IV, in Report by Special Rapporteur Spiropoulos, 26 April 1950, UN Doc. A/CN.4/25, ILC Yearbook (1950-II) p. 253 at p. 263; see also ILC Yearbook (1950-I) pp. 127–128 (Rapporteur Spiropoulos).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-I) p. 126 (Rapporteur Spiropoulos), p. 166 (Cordova); ILC Yearbook (1951-II) p. 58 (Rapporteur Spiropoulos), the latter conduct being left to national law. A proposal to delete ‘organized’ was not accepted: ILC Yearbook (1950-I) p. 127 (François).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-I) pp. 129, 166 (ILC Chairperson).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ibid., at p. 129 (Amado).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    ILC Yearbook (1954-II) p. 117 (UK).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    ILC Yearbook (1954-I) p. 130.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ibid., at p. 131.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-I) p. 218 (Alfaro).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ibid., at p. 126.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-II) p. 253 at pp. 2647–266.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    See, respectively: (a) UN War Crimes Commission, History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War (London, HMSO 1948) ch. III, and Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Report to the Preliminary Peace Conference, 29 March 1919, in 14 AJIL (1920) p. 95 at p. 113; (b) UN War Crimes Commission, Legal Committee Report, 9 May 1944; (c) Australian War Crimes Act 1945, s. 3(ii): ‘murder or massacres — systematic terrorism’, and Chinese Law, 24 October 1946, Art. III(1): war crime of ‘Planned slaughter, murder or other terrorist action’.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-I) p. 127 (Hudson, François).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    1951 Draft Code, Art. I(5), in ILC Yearbook (1951-II) p. 58.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-I) p. 63 (Alfaro and Kerno respectively).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
  77. 77.
    Ibid., at pp. 127–128 (Amado and Yepes respectively).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    R. Higgins, ‘The General International Law of Terrorism’, in R. Higgins and M. Flory, eds., Terrorism and International Law (London, Routledge 1997) p. 13 at pp. 26–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    ILC Yearbook (1950-I) p. 127 (El Khoury).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    UNGA Res. 897 (IX) (1954).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (1974).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    ICC PrepCom Report, UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on an ICC, Rome, 15 June–17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1 (14 April 1998), Art 5. Aggression may be defined by future amendment to the 1998 Rome Statute.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    In particular, the killing of 26 persons at Lod Airport in Israel and a shooting at the apartment of a Soviet diplomat at the UN in NY: J. Murphy, ‘United Nations Proposals on the Control and Repression of Terrorism’, in Bassiouni, ed., op. cit. n. 7, p. 493 at p. 496.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    UN Doc. A/C.6/L.850 (1972), reprinted in 11 ILM (1972) p. 1382; see also J. Moore, ‘Toward Legal Restraints on International Terrorism’, 67 ASIL Proc. (1973) p. 88 at pp. 91–93; J. Dugard, ‘Towards the Definition of International Terrorism’, 67 ASIL Proc. (1973) p. 94 at pp. 98–100.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Murphy, op. cit. n. 83, at p. 505.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Acts must be committed by a foreign national (Art. 1(a)), and outside the target state, or inside the target state but against a foreign national (Art. 1(b)). A state’s territory includes all territory under its jurisdiction or administration: Art. 2(c).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    1972 US Draft Convention, Art. 1(d).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ibid., Art. 14.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    J. Murphy, ‘Defining International Terrorism: A Way Out of the Quagmire’, 19 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (1989) p. 13 at p. 16; J. Norton Moore, ‘The Need for an International Convention’, in Bassiouni, ed., op. cit. n. 7, p. 437 at p. 443.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Murphy, op. cit. n. 83, at p. 496.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    1972 US Draft Convention, Art. 1(c).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ibid., Art. 13.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ibid., Art. 13(a)7–(b).Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Franck and Lockwood, loc. cit. n. 7, at p. 76.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
  96. 96.
    Murphy, op. cit. n. 89, at p. 17; Murphy, op. cit. n. 83, at p. 499.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Murphy, op. cit. n. 83, at p. 500.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ibid., at p. 502.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    UNGA Res. 36/106 (1981).Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    ILC Yearbook (1991-II) p. 94, para. 175; see also ILC (47th Session), 13th Report of Special Rapporteur (1995), UN Doc. A/CN.4/466.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    ILC Yearbook (1990) p. 336.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Emphasis added. Draft Art. 16(1) of 1990 is similar: ILC Yearbook (1990) p. 336.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    ILC Yearbook (1990) p. 338 (Koroma), p. 339 (Pellet, Rao).Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ibid. (Koroma).Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ibid., at p. 338 (Mahiou, Calero Rodriguez); L. Sunga, The Emerging System of International Criminal Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1997) p. 200.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ibid., at p. 338 (Njenga), p. 339 (Benama).Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ibid., at p. 338 (Pellet, Tomuschat, Njenga) and p. 338 (Pellet) respectively. Cf., 1999 Terrorist Financing Convention, Art. 5, establishing corporate liability where a person ‘responsible for the management or control’ of a financial entity ‘in that capacity’ commits a financing offence.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    ILC (45th Session), Comments and Observations from Governments (1993), UN Doc. A/CN.4/448; Sunga, op. cit. n. 105, at p. 202 (Belarus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, Sweden and the UK).Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Sunga, op. cit. n. 105, at p. 202 (referring to Australia and the Netherlands).Google Scholar
  110. 110.
  111. 111.
    ILC, Report on 47th Session (2 May–21 July 1995), UNGAOR Suppl. 10, UN Doc. A/50/10, 58.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    ILC Yearbook (1995-I) p. 38 (Al-Khasawneh).Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ibid., at p. 18 (Vargas Carreño).Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Ibid., at p. 45 (Chairperson Rao).Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ibid., at p. 41 (Rosenstock) and pp. 6–7 (Pellet), p. 8 (Rosenstock), p. 15 (Mikulka) respectively.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Ibid., at p. 21 (Jacovides), p. 26 (Kramer), p. 40 (Razafindralambo), p. 8 (Rosenstock) respectively.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    ILC, Report on 48th Session (6 May–26 July 1996), UN Doc. A/51/10, ch. II(2), paras. 46–48.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    See 1990 Draft, Art. 16, in ILC, Report on 42nd Session (1990), UN Doc. A/45/10, ch. II, paras. 20–158; 1991–1995 Drafts, Art. 24, ILC 43rd–47th Session, in 13th Report of Special Rapporteur, supra n. 100, and ILC, Report on 47th Session, supra n. 111, ch. II(B)(1)–(3), paras. 41–125, 126–139.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    ILC, Report on 47th Session, ibid., ch. II, paras. 27–143.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    ILC, Report on 48th Session, supra n. 117, ch. II, commentary on draft Art. 20, para. 14.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    UNGA Res. 51/160 (1996).Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    1998 Draft Rome Statute, Art. 5, in ICC PrepCom Report, UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on an ICC, Rome, 15 June–17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1 (14 April 1998), p. 2.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    1971 Montreal Convention; 1970 Hague Convention; 1973 Protected Persons Convention; 1979 Hostages Convention; 1988 Rome Convention and 1988 Rome Protocol.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    K. Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2001) p. 227: Algeria, Armenia, Congo, India, Israel, Kyrgyz Republic, Libya, Macedonia, Russia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan and Turkey; see also C. Silverman, ‘An Appeal to the United Nations: Terrorism must come within the Jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court’, 4 New England and Comp. L Ann. (1998), available at <http://www.nesl.edu/intljournal/VOL4/CS.HTM>.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Kittichaisaree, op. cit. n. 124 (Algeria, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey); see UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.27/Corr.1 (29 June 1998).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    ICC PrepCom, Summary of Proceedings, 25 March–12 April 1996, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1 (7 May 1996), para. 66.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
  128. 128.
    Res. E, annexed to the Final Act of the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on an ICC, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/Conf.183/10.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    ICC PrepCom, supra n. 122, para. 67; Kittichaisaree, op. cit. n. 124, at pp. 227–228; A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003) p. 125; see also N. Boister, ‘The Exclusion of Treaty Crimes from the Jurisdiction of the Proposed International Criminal Court: Law, Pragmatism, Politics’, 3 J of Armed Conflict Law (1998) p. 27.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    M. Arsanjani, ‘The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, 93 AJIL (1999) p. 22 at p. 29; Cassese, op. cit. n. 129, at p. 125; see also ICC PrepCom, supra n. 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    D. Scheffer, ‘Developments at Rome Treaty Conference’, Testimony of US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues and Head of US Delegation to the Rome Conference, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington DC, 23 July 1998.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Cassese, op. cit. n. 129, at p. 125; A. Cassese, ‘Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law’, 12 EJIL (2001) p. 993 at p. 994.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Kittichaisaree, op. cit. n. 124, at p. 227.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Res. E, supra n. 128; see also V. Proulx, ‘Rethinking the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Post-September 11th Era: Should Acts of Terrorism Qualify as Crimes against Humanity?’, 19 American Univ. International L Rev. (2004) p. 1009; F. McKay, ‘US Unilateralism and International Crimes: The International Criminal Court and Terrorism’, 36 Cornell ILJ (2004) p. 455; A. Rubin, ‘Legal Response to Terror: An International Criminal Court?’, 43 Harvard ILJ (2002) p. 65; T. Sailer, ‘The International Criminal Court: An Argument to Extend its Jurisdiction to Terrorism and a Dismissal of US Objections’, 13 Temple International and Comp. LJ (1999) p. 311; S.W. Krohne, ‘The United States and the World Need an International Criminal Court as an Ally in the War against Terrorism’, 8 Indiana International and Comp. L Rev. (1997) p. 159; G. Abi-Saab, ‘The Proper Role of International Law in Combating Terrorism’, 1 Chinese JIL (2002) p. 305 at pp. 311–312; Cassese, op. cit. n. 129, at p. 131.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Arsanjani, loc. cit. n. 130, at p. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    1998 Rome Statute, Art. 7.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Arsanjani, loc. cit. n. 130, at p. 31.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    UNGA Res. 51/210 (1996), para. 9.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    UNGAOR (53rd Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (1998), Suppl. 37 (A/53/37), p. 6; UNGAOR (52nd Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (1997), Suppl. 37 (A/52/37), p. 1.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    UNGA (53rd Session) (6th Committee), Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism: Working Group Report, 22 October 1998, UN Doc. A/C.6/53/L.4, annex I, pp. 4–15.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (1998), supra n. 139, annex III, p. 47.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    UNGAOR (58th Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (2003), Suppl. 37 (A/58/37), p. 11; UNGAOR (57th Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (2002), Suppl. 37 (A/57/37); UNGAOR (56th Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (2001), Suppl. 37 (A/56/37).Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    H. Corell, ‘The International Instruments against Terrorism’, Paper at Symposium on Combating International Terrorism: The Contribution of the UN, Vienna, 3–4 June 2002, p. 12.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    1980 Vienna Convention, Art. 7.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    ‘[I]n a manner which releases or risks the release of radioactive material’.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Ancillary offences are found in Draft Nuclear Terrorism Convention, Arts. 2(2)(a)–(b), 3, 4(a)–(c).Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2003), supra n. 142, at pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Draft Nuclear Terrorism Convention, Art. 4.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention, Art. 19.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (1998), supra n. 139, annex III, p. 50.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2003), supra n. 142, at pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (1998), supra n. 139, annex III, pp. 46, 47.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Especially relating to a proposal to draft a protocol to the 1980 Vienna Convention; and the 1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention and the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: ibid., at p. 45.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Ibid., at pp. 47, 49.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Ibid., at p. 50.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    UNGA Res. 58/81 (2004), paras. 15–19.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    N. Rostow, ‘Before and After: The Changed UN Response to Terrorism since September 11th’, 35 Cornell ILJ (2002) p. 475 at p. 489.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    UNGA Res. 54/110 (1999); UNGAOR (55th Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (2000), Suppl. 37 (A/55/37); see S. Subedi, ‘The UN Response to International Terrorism in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks in America and the Problem of the Definition of Terrorism in International Law’, 4 International L Forum (2002) p. 159; L. Bondi, ‘Legitimacy and Legality: Key Issues in the Fight against Terrorism’, Fund for Peace, Washington DC, 11 September 2002, pp. 26–30.Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2000), supra n. 158, at p. 4.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Abi-Saab, loc. cit. n. 134, at pp. 311–312.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    See Ad Hoc Committee Report (2001), supra n. 142; UNGA (57th Session) (6th Committee), Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism: Working Group Report, 16 October 2002, A/C.6/57/L.9, annex II, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2003), supra n. 142, at p. 8.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Ibid., at p. 6.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    UNGA, Ad Hoc Committee, ‘Finalizing Treaty Requires Agreement on “Armed Forces”, “Foreign Occupation”, Anti-Terrorism Committee Told’, PR L/2993, 1 February 2002.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    UNGA Res. 58/81 (2004), paras. 14–19.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2002), supra n. 142, annex I (Discussion paper by the Bureau).Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    UNGA (56th Session) (6th Committee), Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism: Working Group Report, 29 October 2001, UN Doc. A/C.6/56/L.9, annex I, p. 16 (informal Coordinator texts); Ad Hoc Committee Report (2002), supra n. 142, at pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Ancillary offences are found in Draft Comprehensive Convention, Arts. 2(2), (3) and (4)(a)–(c).Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Draft Comprehensive Convention, Art. 14.Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    2002 European Union Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002/475/JHA) (adopted 13 June 2002, OJ L164/3, 22 June 2002, entered into force 22 June 2002), recital 11.Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Although NGOs have raised concerns about aspects of definition in Arts. 2 and 18: Amnesty International, ‘Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism: A Threat to Human Rights Standards’, Statement to UNGA 56th Session (2002), AI Index IOR 51/009/2001, 22 October 2001; Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, ‘Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism’, Joint Letter to Ambassadors, 28 January 2002.Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Subedi, loc. cit. n. 158, at p. 163.Google Scholar
  173. 173.
  174. 174.
    Ibid., at p. 165.Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Austria, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK, US.Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 19(c), does not permit reservations which are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention, Art. 19(2), also stating that the terms ‘armed forces’ and ‘armed conflict’ are understood according to, and governed by, IHL. Thus non-state armed forces may also be covered: Witten, loc. cit. n. 1, at p. 780. Some state bombings outside armed conflict,and not by armed forces in their official duties, might still be unlawful, such as France’s bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand in 1986: R. Marauhn, ‘Terrorism: Addendum’, in R. Bernhardt, ed., Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4 (Amsterdam, North Holland 2000) p. 849 at p. 853.Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    OIC proposal, in Ad Hoc Committee Report (2002), supra n. 142, at p. 17.Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    UNGAOR (59th Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (2004), Suppl. 37 (A/59/37), p. 11, para. 6.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    S. von Schorlemer, ‘Human Rights: Substantive and Institutional Implications of the War on Terror’, 14 EJIL (2003) p. 265 at p. 272; C. Walter, ‘Defining Terrorism in National and International Law’, in C. Walter, et al., eds., Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law (Heidelberg, Springer 2003) p. 23 at pp. 39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    ICRC Report, ‘Terrorism and International Law: Challenges and Responses: The Complementary Nature of Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law and Refugee Law’, Geneva, 2002, p. 5.Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Walter, op. cit. n. 180, at pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2003), supra n. 142, at p. 9.Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2004), supra n. 179, at p. 11, para. 7.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    OIC proposal, in Ad Hoc Committee Report (2002), supra n. 142, annex IV, p. 17.Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Rostow, loc. cit. n. 157, at p. 488.Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    M. Halberstam, ‘The Evolution of the United Nations Position on Terrorism: From Exempting National Liberation Movements to Criminalizing Terrorism Wherever and by Whomever Committed’, 41 Columbia J Transnational L (2003) p. 573 at p. 582.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    UNGA (52nd Session) (6th Committee), Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism: Working Group Report, 10 October 1997, UN Doc. A/C.6/52/L.3, p. 19 (Syria), p. 31 (Egypt); UNGAOR (52nd Session), Ad Hoc Committee Report (1997), Suppl. 37 (A/52/37), p. 38 (Pakistan).Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    UN Secretary-General, ‘Addressing Assembly on Terrorism, Calls for “Immediate, Far-Reaching Changes” in UN Response to Terror’, UN PR, UN Doc. SG/SM/7977 GA/9920, 1 October 2001.Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2004), supra n. 179, at p. 7, para. 16; p. 11, para. 8.Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    In the 1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention, ‘military forces of a State’ is definedinArt. 1(4) as ‘the armed forces of a State which are organized, trained and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defence or security and persons acting in support of those armed forces who are under their formal command, control and responsibility’. Proposals to explicitly refer to official duties such as law enforcement, evacuation operations, peace operations,UN operations, or humanitarian relief were not adopted: Working Group Report (1997), supra n. 188, at p. 58 (Australia, Germany), p. 59 (Rep. Korea, Costa Rica, NZ).Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Including IHL, human rights law, international criminal law, the law on the non-use of force and non-intervention, and the law of state responsibility.Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    ICRC, supra n. 181.Google Scholar
  194. 194.
  195. 195.
  196. 196.
    1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 33(1) (prohibiting ‘all measures... of terrorism’); 1977 Protocol I, Art. 51(2) and 1977 Protocol II, Art. 13(2) (prohibiting ‘acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population’); 1977 Protocol II, Art. 4(2)(d) (prohibiting ‘acts of terrorism’); see also 1923 Hague Draft Rules Concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, in 17 AJIL (1923) Suppl. p. 245; 1994 ICTR Statute, Art. 4(2)(d); 2000 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (annexed to UNSC Res. 1315 (2000), Art. 3(d). In the Galic case, ICTY-98-29-T (5 December 2003), the ICTY found that the prohibition in Art. 51(2) of 1977 Protocol I gives rise to individual criminal liability as an implicit grave breach of Protocol I.Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Walter, op. cit. n. 180, at pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    See discussion of an identical provision in the 1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention: Ad Hoc Committee Report (1997), supra n. 188, at p. 53 (Rapporteur).Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    UNGA (57th Session) (6th Committee), Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism: Working Group Report, 16 October 2002, A/C.6/57/L.9, annex II, p. 8.Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 30.Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2002), supra n. 142, at p. 7; an approach adopted by the 1972 US Draft Convention.Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Ad Hoc Committee Report (2003), supra n. 142, at p. 9; Ad Hoc Committee Report (2004), supra n. 179, at p. 12, para. 14.Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Particularly Draft Comprehensive Convention, Art. 18.Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    G. Levitt, ‘Is “Terrorism” Worth Defining?’, 13 Ohio Northern Univ. L Rev. (1986) p. 97 at p. 111.Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Arts. 2, 5. The UN General Assembly has often expressed concern at links between terrorist groups and violent organized crime: Preambles to UNGA Res. 44/29 (1989); 46/51 (1991); 48/122 (1993); 49/60 (1994); 49/185 (1994); 50/186 (1995); 54/164 (1999); 58/136 (2003). Since the 1980s the categories increasingly converge: W. Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction (London, Phoenix Press 2001) pp. 210–225.Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    G. Fitzmaurice, ‘The DefinitionofAggression’, 1 ICLQ (1952) p. 137 at pp. 143–144; Brownlie, op. cit. n. 56, at p. 355.Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Levitt, loc. cit. n. 204, at p. 112; Lambert, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 51; Murphy, op. cit. n. 89, at p. 28; Franck and Lockwood, loc. cit. n. 7, at pp. 78–79; M.C. Bassiouni, ‘A Policy-Oriented Inquiry into the Different Forms and Manifestations of “International Terrorism”’, in M.C. Bassiouni, ed., Legal Responses to International Terrorism (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1988) pp. xv, xxix. Political motives may also be difficult to distinguish from criminal or even pathological ones: M. Ignatieff, ‘Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism’, 69 Social Research (2002) p. 1137 at p. 1146; see also J. Burke, ‘What exactly does al-Qaeda want?’, Observer, 21 March 2004.Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Fitzmaurice, loc. cit., n. 206, at pp. 143–144; Brownlie, op. cit. n. 56, at p. 355.Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    Brownlie, op. cit. n. 56, at p. 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (UN, December 2004) p. 52; UN Secretary-General’s Report, ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, UNGA (59th Session), 21 March 2005, UN Doc. A/59/2005, at para. 91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Saul
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations