Conclusion

Abstract

As the overarching argument of this book goes, State sovereignty considerations and cosmopolitan ideals are the two principal driving forces in the development of international law in general and international criminal law in particular. However, these two dynamics ofter appear to conflict, with the former, typically based on political interests and exigencies, trying to push back any developments aspired to by the latter. For this reason, more often than not, international criminal law developments have been slow and often confronted by States which tend to have a rather conservative view of how international law should work in practice. This book has been an attempt to demonstrate how these two dynamics can be potentially reconciled in an effort to define and criminalise terrorism for international criminal justice purposes. It is the author’s view that not only is there an imperative need to finally agree upon a universal definition for terrorism but also that this definition should be more than a compromise between those who aspire to cosmopolitan ideas and those who prioritise State concerns over those ideas. The formulation of an international definition for terrorism, if ever achieved, should be seen as an example of how States and international criminal justice can work together towards the achievement of a common end which will eventually benefit all sides involved, States, individual victims and the international community, contributing meaningfully to the effectiveness of the international criminal justice system as it stands today.