Introduction

The issue of terrorism is highly sensitive because it is carried out by individuals influenced by multifaceted ideological perspectives and motivated by a variety of other factors such as history, philosophy, politics, psychology and personal experience. complicated. Radicalization to terrorism can be carried out by groups stemming from extremist ideologies or even by individuals commonly referred to as “lone wolves.” Efforts to understand and eradicate terrorism internationally can be traced back to 1937, when the League of Nations drafted the Convention to Prevent and Punish Terrorism. Although the treaty never saw the light of day, its efforts to define terrorism constitute a fundamental step toward understanding the dangers of terrorism around the world. is defined as “acts of a criminal nature directed against a State intended to instill fear in the mind of a particular person, group of people, or the general public.” One of the shortcomings of this interpretation is that it did not recognize terrorist attacks against civilians as comprehensively and prominently as it should have, but this serves as an important reference point for subsequent discourses on terrorism. And yet, the international community has yet to adopt a comprehensive and concrete definition of terrorism. But this lack of consensus does not mean a lack of progress in developing counter-terrorism mechanisms. The United Nations and others of his IO have successfully produced declarations and resolutions, specific ad hoc agreements have been formulated and several universal “sectoral” conventions have been promulgated in relation to specific aspects of terrorism. it was done. Such multidimensional mechanisms have succeeded in providing a basic framework by defining the core elements of specific acts and terrorism, thereby facilitating the counter-terrorism process.

A Customary Perspective on Terrorism

As noted above, there is no generally accepted definition of the term “terrorism”, but the evidence relevant to the definition used is that of the Lebanese Special Court, which has dealt with terrorism within customary international law. It can be found in the 2011 judgment [1]. The tribunal relied heavily on the broad range of German policies, rules, practices and norms adopted by the United Nations and the United Nations General Assembly, as well as evolving national and international jurisprudence, to define terrorism.

• First key element is the committal of a criminal act such as against civilians, conspiracy, causing death or serious bodily injury, holding hostage, kidnapping etc.
• Second key element is the criminal intent with which is act is perpetrated. Holding aims such as spreading a sense of fear and terror on a widespread level or use of oppressive methods against any authority to the extent of harassing them to carry out a specific act or even refrain from some according to their demands.
• Lastly, the act must be of transnational nature.

The tribunals view was severely criticized for not expressing a holistic view while defining terrorism because of which this understanding was rather narrow. One of the prominent commentators of that time, Ben Saul pointed out the absence of a comprehensive definition of terrorism. A consensus was that a customary definition of terrorism is still evolving and there is time till fruition, yet its existence was recognized.

United Nations Definitional Approach- A Timeline

The first instance in the timeline of efforts carried out by the UN to define terrorism can be traced back to the UN Resolution 49/60, which was intended at criminalizing an array of armed activities which were designated as “terrorist” in essence, the resolution referred to terrorism as, “Acts aimed to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.

Another UN attempt to decipher terrorism can be traced back to Resolution 1566. This Resolution 1566 was intended to assist countries in fulfilling their obligations under Resolution 1373. Resolution 1566 broadly defines terrorism as: To all States of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar character within the meaning of the International Conventions and Protocols on Terrorism, We seek to ensure that such acts are prevented and, if not prevented, are punished with penalties commensurate with their serious nature. ”

Another important source to define and understand terrorism in a global context is the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999 and the same understanding of terrorism was also reaffirmed by the UNSC Resolution, 2001.

Security Council Resolution 1373: A Harbinger of Progress

The year is 2001, the scenario is that the two towers of the world trade center in New York City, the Pentagon in D.C and in Pennsylvania have been crashed into by 4 hijacked airplanes. What made these attacks monumental was that the symbols of American identity had fallen to ground like a house of cards. The Security Council post the attacks took certain steps to inculcate counter-terrorism mechanisms to fight against terrorism on a global level. There was a condemnation of global terror and the right to self-defense was recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Perhaps its most significant action in this area, however, was the adoption of Resolution 1373 which established the Counter-Terrorism Committee. The resolution remains silent on the definition clause as far as terrorism is concerned and even on identification of separate and specific terrorists’ acts. Rather a deviation from the usual course of action has been observed and it seems to be focusing more on empowering individual nations in terms of legislative and executive competency as far as countering terrorism is concerned. Resolution 1373 creates a uniform obligation for all 191 member states to the United Nations, thus going beyond the existing international counterterrorism conventions and protocols binding only those that have become parties to them. Resolution 1373 encompasses various counter-terrorism measures, including controls upon terrorist financing and weapons transfers, criminalization of certain acts, enhanced border control and policies for inter-State cooperation. The focus has been laid on the crucial area of financing terrorism but alongside it also places expectations on states and urges them to take steps against terrorists, their organizations. To carry out the same obligation the states are required to update domestic laws and to curb terrorism, improve border security and control traffic in arms, cooperate and exchange information with other states concerning terrorists, and provide judicial assistance to other states in criminal proceedings related to terrorism. Finally, it creates the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) tasked with monitoring the implementation of Resolution 1373. In a basic sense it expects all states to function in unison by working more efficiently on improving their domestic legislations in such a manner that terrorist financing is rendered impossible.

Implications of “No Definition Consensus” Under Security Council Resolution 1373

The absence of a universally accepted definition is a cause for grave concern as the fluid nature of it can be manipulated in multiple ways. Consequences of terrorism are known to affect the entire world, a lot of ambiguity in such a scenario can warrant for misapplication and misuse by authorities. Politicization of terrorism can facilitate mismanagement by those in power which can result into states turning violent against its citizen in the name of countering terrorism. Scenarios like these create a hospitable environment for violations to take place in such as rights of the citizens being infracted. Even though there is a generally accepted notion that counter-terrorism measures are bound to be stringent but at no point should it overpower the rights of an individual.

It also becomes extremely important to bridge such gaps as absence of a universally accepted definition also leads to ambiguous domestic legislations. These gaps account for shoddy legislations which are not all-inclusive in nature. These ambiguities go against the very premise of principle of legality, or nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, a latin phraseology used to denote that no person shall be punished under any circumstance for an act which was not criminalized under the relevant legislation at that given point in time when it was alleged to have been committed. Principle of legality in essence disallows criminal law to be applied retrospectively and demands for an offence to be clearly defined in the law itself and the punishment to be prescribed thereof. It is based on the humble assumption; “no punishment without law”.

Another significant issue has been the lack of harmonization between national and regional laws and normative standards on countering terrorism. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 (2001), which required States to take effective national legislative action as part of their global efforts to counter terrorism more effectively. Although, on the one hand, this obligated States to take legislative action, in the absence of a universally agreed definition of terrorism, the result has been a mixed legislative response and approach by Member States, sometimes with the potential to hinder rather than facilitate international cooperation. The resolution has also been criticized for its “no definition consensus” as wider understanding of a concept such as terrorism can lead to miscarriage of justice if independent states are not cautious while exercising power and interpreting international conventions and can potentially violate the rights of individuals such as the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to seek asylum, the right to freedom of expression, as well as the prohibition of torture and discrimination. The states at no point shall turn violent towards its citizens and violate their human rights in the pretext of countering terrorism.

Perceptions on Terrorism; Destroying the Cliché

Terrorism and Religion

The above image represents the irrelevance of religion in terrorism.

One should at this point stop and ask oneself this question, what is it that one associates terrorism to or what is the image that comes to one’s mind when they think of a terrorist? The response is so apparent that it is better left unanswered for the purpose of understanding how deeply rooted is this stereotypical image of terrorism in our thoughts. There seems to exist this common behavioral pattern of associating terrorism to religion more particularly to Islam.

The below image represents the diversity when it comes to participation in terrorist activities by humans.

An intentional use of blue has been made in the above chart for 2 main reasons a) for the purpose of representing oneself as human first and then religious and b) to signify all religions as one and unified.

Taking into consideration a hypothetical scenario where we try to derive a logical inference from the following statements: A) All terrorists are humans B) Not every human is a Muslim, this leads us to a simple and humble conclusion that not all terrorists are Muslims.

Terrorists hailing from around the world come from different religious backgrounds and not just Islam. Separating Islam from terrorism is rather crucial as many claim that there is no “true Islam” or there is no authentic way to follow Islam. In such a scenario, associating terrorist activities singularly to Islam is erroneous because of two main reasons a) Islam is the second largest religion in the world after Christianity and b) Islam is reasonably heterogeneous in nature, both these factors add to explain us the importance of not generalizing and compartmentalizing Islam.

Perils of Polarization

When it comes to learning from experiences, France has some to teach us all. In a country that is increasingly polarized the events that took place in 2015 which killed about 150 people, divided the country further. The incident arose when an Islamist terrorist attack was carried out at the office of a French satirical magazine ‘charlie hebdo’. The attacks spurred after they magazine had published a caricature of Prophet Muhammad that triggered the religious sentiments of his followers. Soon after the attacks were carried out, a slogan “Je suis Charlie” which translates to “I am Charlie” emerged as the beacon of defending free speech and ricocheted around across the globe harnessing support. All standing together against the terrorist attack in France were inspired by this shared sentiment of “I am Charlie”. A couple of years into the future, the slogan which was used to unify people against the terrorist attack has led to the creation of a wide crack between the two newly created sects of people based on secularism, identity, freedom of speech and most definitely Islam. This has led to multiple complications and now the people seem to be under a compulsion to pick sides. One who identify with Charlie as “I am Charlie” and the other who don’t identify with Charlie as “I am not Charlie”. “I wish this slogan would cease to exist because in the form it’s taken today, it deepens the divide^]. What this divide mainly signifies is that if one is Charlie, they support the caricatures that were published and in that way are anti-Islam and non-secular whereas if one is not Charlie, they do not support an individual’s right to express themselves and opine that when it comes to religion there is no tolerance.

In this scenario, the people have seemed to fallen prey to the play of words and have in the process lost the plot. The real fight against terrorism remains untouched while new issues are emerging, and the divide seems to sharpen further. This is exactly the learning the author was referring to; past experiences are not for regret but for progress.

We seem to be losing a perspective of things as we shift from “I think therefore I am” to “I believe therefore I am right” which has also been recognized as post-truth politics. Hence it is essential we start questioning things and understanding them in their true essence rather than falling prey to our emotions and falling into the trash chute of “make-believe”. On that note, dividing people is dangerous and further prompts terrorist behaviour.

Unifying the Polar World

Unifying people globally is essential in the fight against terrorism. To have a humanist approach towards dealing with such evils existing in our society is to understand that it is not the people who are particularly evil rather it is the circumstance that is. The us v. them or the good v. evil narrative is rather a futile effort at understanding crime and criminology, the blame game is nothing but a journey through a tunnel that never ends and sees light. Such a narrative causes frustration of a kind like that of what Kafka referred to while coining the term “Kafkaesque”. History is witness of what happens when poles are crated globally, cold war taught us so many lessons about the horrifying outcomes of dividing people and creating a so-called powerful pole up against weaker ones. Dividing people gives birth to many more issues, creates more hurdles, and pushes us farther away from our eventual goals. Polarizing further the already polarized world is not a singular step but rather multiple leaps forward towards the Judgement day.

Terrorism Beyond Good and Evil

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”

It is extremely complex to study and understand terrorist behaviour as for one no terrorist would volunteer to be studied as a terrorist and secondly trying to conclude from afar can lead to serious miscalculations and errors. Many psychologists ascertain that assuaging people’s fear of cultural annihilation, highlighting our common humanity or demonstrating the discrepancy between the dream and reality of terrorist involvement can possibly help in prevention of terrorism.

A study was carried out by psychologist John Horgan at the Pennsylvania State University’s International Center for study of terrorism which involved interview with 60 former terrorists. The insights provided by him highlighted the reasons behind a person voluntarily and sometimes even involuntarily opting for such a dangerous course of action. Few amongst these reasons were as follows-

• Feelings of angst, alienation and lack of connection.
• Existence of a thought process that signifies feeling of discontent towards a particular political regime in which they find themselves not well represented to motivate and make real changes.
• Self-identifying oneself as a victim of injustice because of which they feel obligate to reciprocate with such harsh measure.
• Strong belief in the concept of ‘talk less, do more’.
• Carrying beliefs that it is not immoral to wage war against state when demanding rights.

Terrorism has also been recognized as the “warfare of the weak”, in this sense, it means groups that lack power resort to such oppressive measures against the authorities that they believe do not recognize their welfare. Hence, in this context, it becomes essential to study psychological pattern to come up with mechanisms of deradicalization.

Emerging Trends in Terrorism

Terrorism manifests in multiple forms and shapes and is not restricted to one isolated form as we have seemed to perceive and accept it as. Mentioned hereunder are certain emerging trends many of which have been said to exist from much before but have gained significance of a large magnitude as they have been seen to emerge and pose a great threat to humanity.

SN	Type of trend	What does it mean?	What do these trends entail?
1.	Lone wolf terrorism/ Lone actor terrorism	Hamm & Spaaij in their book “Age of lone wolf terrorism” define it as “political violence perpetrated by individuals who act alone; do not belong to any organized terrorist group or network”	v March 2019, Holden Matthews burnt and destroyed 3 black churches in Louisiana.v March 2019, two consecutive mass shootings took place at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand during Friday prayers.v August 2019, Patrick Crusius conducted a domestic mass shooting attack at Walmart in El Paso, Texas.
2.	Radicalization	Radicalization is a process in which individuals adopt extreme political, social, and/or religious ideals and aspirations, and where the attainment of goals justifies the use of indiscriminate violence. It is both a mental and emotional process that prepares and motivates an individual to pursue violent behavior.	v Islamist Radicalizationv Right-wing radicalizationv Increasing role of Internet and social media- “social media constitutes a facilitating environment rather than a driving force for violent radicalization or the actual commission of violence.”
3.	Covid-19 and terrorism	Violent extremists across the ideological spectrum view the global pandemic as an opportunity for expansion.	v Increased spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda, increased recruitment online, backfire of preventive COVID-19 lock down measures.
4.	Cyber-terrorism	Cyber terrorism is the use of the Internet to conduct violent acts that result in, or threaten, loss of life or significant bodily harm, to achieve political or ideological gains through threat or intimidation.	v Employing measures such as computer viruses, worms, phishing, ransomware attacks, Denial of Service attacks, cyber espionage, cyber hacktivist.

American Exceptionalism behind the Veil of Euphemism

There seems to be this pattern of taking a moral high ground by the United States when they seem to be carrying out violent and immoral acts across the world. The United States is the biggest culprit when it comes to abusing the term “collateral damage”. It not only has toyed around the term but has also used the euphemism to its advantage.

Take for instance the conduct US adopted in the infamous bombings of the cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, President Truman righteously tried to justify its action by claiming the bombs were strategically dropped to attack the military bae without cause civilian causalities. It is a no brainer that the attacks did result in killing of thousands of civilians almost instantly.

Further carrying out operation “rolling thunder” US managed to kill almost 52,000 North Vietnamese which comprises an estimate of 0.3% of the total population.^[10] Instance of aerial bombing over Korean territory was also carried by the US and this time “legitimate military targets” also included civilian holdings like arms factories, railway networks and their workers. The officers assigned with the bombings of North Korea’s major cities pledged to turn North Korea into “a desert” and “every installation, facility and village in North Korea” became a military and a tactical target subsequently.

While quoting such instances, the author does not intend to take away any good efforts being carried out by the US but there has been a pattern of doublespeak tendency when it comes to protection of Human Rights. US has time and again portrayed itself as a messiah for the world in general, the American exceptionalism is a fixation amongest the United States’ political elite that their nation has the universal struggle and free hand to spread the tenets of democracy, freedom, sovereignty and now, global capitalism.

Conclusion

It is especially important to recognize that life cannot be quantified. Killing could not be more conveniently carried out to justify and achieve personal ends and motives. The simple fact of accepting life’s struggles is poignantly but justly revealed in the life of the Greek king Sisyphus. He was punished by the gods for rolling a huge boulder to the top of the mountain, only for it to roll down so he could start over. When you learn from life, try to instill that level of commitment and acceptance of struggle as a part of life. Feelings of dissatisfaction, disharmony, or unhappiness you feel toward your government or other authorities must be dealt with with peace and patience, even if it leads you to fight like the Greek king Sisyphus. Hmm. Violence creates new problems instead of good results. Making others feel insecure under this pretext, instead of dodging their own insecurity, is nothing more than a process of burden-shifting that never dismantles.The threat of terrorism is new and Human-related problems must be approached with a humane approach in order to remove the roots of the evils that threaten our societies and people’s lives.

---