This article is written by Yashovardhan Agarwal, currently pursuing B.A.L.L.B.(Hons.) from Hidayatullah National Law University. This is an exhaustive article which talks about what is International Terrorism and how it impacts the society at large and are there any regulations to curb it and are they sufficient.
Terrorism has no definition particularly because it is a way of expression by a group of people towards the society when their demands are not fulfilled/ when they want to showcase their dominance. So technically terrorism can be understood as a method of coercion in which violence is used as the key weapon in order to spread fear or to achieve any particular goal. International terrorism, as a matter of fact, can be defined as the terrorism which crosses the national boundary, this means that when in terms of place of operation or methodology used the perpetrator goes beyond his national boundary, it can be considered as International Terrorism. Now, most of the people will agree on the point that the act of terrorism is a very recent affair but terrorism was also very much prevalent in ancient times as well. The term terrorism originated from the period of the French Revolution describing the ‘Reign of Terror’. During this period the Revolutionary government used violent and harsh measures against its citizens who were suspected of being enemies of the revolution.
International Terrorism is the result of ongoing globalization. It has made the sharing of information, acquiring weapons, and cooperating internally with other organizations across the national border very easily. So this has made the terrorist organizations able to operate efficiently, mainly in those regions where the political condition is not stable for eg. Syria, Iraq, etc. because of this, these organizations earn easy money by committing crimes like illicit trade and abduction.
Brief History Of Terrorism
How does one get labelled as a terrorist? On the face of it, there is no perfect answer to this question, and Terrorism being exclusively an Islamist phenomenon is out of the question, It is not a recent phenomenon. Terrorism has a vast range of ideological motivations and a pretty long history.
Terrorism has been used as a political tactic since time immemorial take the examples of The Jewish Zealots and The Islamic Assassins. They resolved to violence to communicate their message of freedom of opposition and resistance to submission.
As we have discussed earlier that terrorism was derived from the french revolution during the reign of terror. Robespierre described this as a virtuous form of violence, which was to be used by the revolutionary-democratic state against its domestic enemies.
this made the 19th-century newspapers to describe these types of violence as the intimidation and violence by the state against its subjects prime examples of these are “The terrorism practised by the police” in Russia and “the Oppressive system of military terrorism” in Poland.
Modern terrorism, which entails the systemic usage of aggression against the state rather than against it, originated in Europe in the 1870s. The person generally recognized as the first terrorist was 26-year-old social revolutionary Vera Zasulich, who shot the St Petersburg governor in 1878 to protest the Russian state’s repression of domestic political protest.
In its advocacy for a democratic change in Russia in line with the French Revolution, the Russian revolutionary movement used non-violent “propaganda by the term” to a certain level. Zasulich’s shot breached the tabou of using aggression to convey political messages.
Result of western modernity
This type of new violent political practice was becoming prevalent with the emergence of organized terrorism. First, there was Narodnaya Volya(people’s will), a Russian revolutionary group, and self-proclaimed terrorists. This organization was behind the assassination of Alexander II in 1881.
This Russian terrorist struggle was to some degree accepted and admired by several Western observers. For Instance, Mark Twain said that if a government can only be thrown off by the help of dynamite then be it that way.
Such first international terrorists were like today’s terrorists, except that their acts were made feasible by the use of Western technological consumer goods. Spectacular aggression was carried out using modern inventions such as industrially made revolvers and the scientifically-based dynamite discovery of Alfred Nobel. Terrifying political signals have been disseminated worldwide via news stories delivered via transatlantic telegraph cables and distributed on steam-powered printing presses through industrial mass media firms.
Also, these first examples of people being labelled “terrorists” were almost exclusively reserved for acts of non-Western terrorism. Terrorism has usually not been discussed since extremist methods have been employed against regimes and citizens in Western Europe or the US–by Fenians and insurgents or anti-colonial rebels in British India, for example. Instead, abuse of this sort was most frequently defined as indignation or murder.
This is amid the reality that such organizations have utilized the same terrorism techniques and technology as Russian terrorists. The modern language was evidently intended for the radical cause of Russia. It was only after World War I that these other types of terrorism in and against Western governments started to be more widely called terrorism.
That is the true starting point for the more widely-recognized type of aggressive political activity that we all identify and define as terrorism.
Types Of Terrorism
Terrorism has been identified widely by academics, politicians and security personnel.U.S. researchers began to distinguish between the forms of extremism in the 1970s. Within the span of ten years, several foreign and domestic militant organizations bloomed. At that time, modern terrorist groups began to use different kinds of terrorist acts, such as bombing, hijacking, assassination, and diplomatic kidnapping, to fulfil their objectives, and for the first time, they were perceived as real threats to Western countries in the eyes of researchers, politicians, law enforcement and lawmakers. They began to distinguish between the forms of terrorism in order to combat it.
In this form of terrorism, biological agents are used to damage and threaten ordinary people in the context of political or other purposes. The U.S. Centre for Disease Control has identified pathogens, bacteria, and poisons that may be used for an attack. They are
- Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis)
- Botulism (Clostridium botulinum toxin)
- The Plague (Yersinia pestis)
- Smallpox (Variola major)
- Tularemia (Francisella Tularensis)
- Hemorrhagic fever, due to Ebola Virus or Marburg Virus
Terrorists utilize computer technologies in this method of terrorism to influence the general population and to draw focus to their target. This could indicate that they utilize digital technologies, such as telephone, computers, and the Internet, as a method for planning a traditional assault. In cyber warfare, the usage of digital technologies will dramatically undermine infrastructure connected to the Internet. For example, cybercriminals may break into housing networks to extract sensitive financial details or bypass networked emergency services. Cyber terrorism is the use of the Internet for subversive acts such as large-scale destruction of computer networks, especially computers linked to the Internet, by means of computer viruses.
Eco-terrorism is a modern form of terrorism that incorporates aggression in the interests of the community. For example, environmental extremists damage the property of the livestock industry and the natural environment. Such industries include forestry firms, for farms, and animal science laboratories.
The FBI describes eco-terrorism as “the use or use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or properties by an environmentally-oriented, sub-national, environmental-policy community, or by an audience outside the target, sometimes of a symbolic type.”
The word “eco-terrorism” is contentious and democratic. The accusation of eco-terrorism against environmentalists who are mostly non-violent has been used by businesses and those who are accused by environmentalists.
At the very least, conservation activists utilize aggression against people as a strategy to create terror, favouring property harm, or devastation. According to media monitoring house, Source Watch, “there have been several efforts by corporate lobby parties, PR companies, and political think tanks to equate environmental advocacy with extremism since 1990.”
Nuclear terrorism is a particular type of use of nuclear energy by terrorists. This involves targeting nuclear facilities, designing nuclear arms or purchasing nuclear explosives, or seeking methods to spread these toxic materials.
A terrorist attack on a nuclear testing centre or nuclear power plant can result in the release of nuclear material. The implications of an attack on a nuclear testing centre or nuclear power plant may be equal to or greater than the impact of the Chernobyl accident in the USSR in 1986, which resulted in 30 deaths from radiation poisoning, 1800 cases of childhood thyroid cancer, the displacement of one Lakhs citizen and the toxic pollution of a large area of land in various countries.
A second option for terrorists to target nuclear materials would be to build a “dirty bomb” by planting a conventional radioactive material explosive. When the bomb explodes, it will scatter. Terrorists may also buy manufactured nuclear weapons on the black market.
Terrorist groups could also be able to build improvised nuclear devices (INDs) as suggested in a study released by the British think tank Chatham House in February 2007.
The Improvised Nuclear System (IND) may also be produced using greater amounts of lower quality, less enriched-235 and can burn the entire mass instantly and efficiently. It is possible that a militant organization will develop a nuclear bomb or purchase the same one.
Political terrorism involves the use of violence to establish panic among people for political purposes. Terrorism groups typically use violence to undermine or destabilize the regime, but in some situations, dictatorial regimes often use intimidation to preserve their influence or to intimidate their opponents.
“After the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, which resulted in the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York City and significant damage to the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the United States has changed its focus to the eradication of terrorism in the world. Terrorism requires the deliberate use of terror or violence to accomplish political goals. Terrorist goals include government leaders, known persons or organizations, and innocent people. In most cases, terrorists try to topple or destabilize an established political system, but authoritarian and dictatorial regimes often use violence to retain their control.
This form of extremism is motivated by philosophies and values such as communism, populism, Nazism, sexism, chauvinism and resistance to immigration. Contemporary right-wing populism first appeared in Europe following the break-up of the Soviet Union in the year 1980.
The goal of the right-wing terrorists is to topple the government and create a nationalist or fascist regime. This form of terrorism involves racist skinheads, hooligans, youth sympathizers and academics who feel that the government must force foreigners out of the country to protect its original residents. In this form of terrorism, the terrorists are competing with the liberal government to maintain their heritage. Right-Wing terrorists are politically motivated and seek to oppress minorities within the world. Right-wing extremist groups are Klu Klux Klan and Neo-Fascists. There are too many other communities in the U.S.A., India, Germany, Russia, and other nations.
Left-wing terrorism (also called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or revolutionary terrorism)
In this form of terrorism, the terrorists aim to overthrow the bourgeois system and create a democratic or socialist regime. Left-wing militants, historically known as Maoists and Naxalites. In order to eliminate class differentiation, they want to destroy the existing structure. These forms of terrorists still exist in some nations, although they are not as powerful as they were during the Cold War.
Revolutionary People Support Liberation Party-Front in Turkey, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) Communist Party of India (Maoist) in India, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in Nepal, Japanese Red Army in Japan, and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are examples of left-wing militant organizations.
In this form of terrorism, country acts of aggression are perpetrated against the other country or against its own people. This form of terrorism varies from the state-sponsored terrorism in which a nation sponsors militant groups that retain influence in a region. State terrorism is the deliberate use of violence by the government to monitor its people.
The French Revolution of 1793, in which thousands of civilians were killed, is commonly pointed to as the first case of state terrorism. In history, every leader has used this form of terrorism to govern his own people. A more recent example is the use of Saddam Hussein’s brutality against the Kurds or the repression of peaceful protesters in Syria.
Impact Of Terrorism
The theory and earliest influence of fear-based injustice is emotional. Fear-based oppressive violence may have an emotional effect on a significant percentage of the people of a targeted community, either directly, through hitting a man or his kin, whether in a roundabout manner, or by a broad media reporting of psychological oppressive assaults
The more prominent the number of assaults and the more deadly they are, the more individuals that will be mentally influenced by them. Terror induced injustice is a kind of emotional battle against the general population. It’s the perfect way to hit terror at the heart of a central community. Suicide-based injustice can be particularly effective in shocking people, as it projects an aura of commitment that is more likely to affect the risk of potential violence.
The fear of psychological warfare is both level-headed and unwise; in that context, there is an ever-present possibility of fear of a monger’s attack being rehashed, and, in the probability, stupidly relegated to that future occasion. Since individuals continue to overestimate their odds of becoming a target of psychological exploitation, there is pervasive apprehension of apprehension-based exploitation in the general population. This doesn’t, as it might be, affect others to an equal degree. Studies have found that there is a negative association between a man’s preparation and fear of becoming a victim of terror-based exploitation. This suggests that the more a man is educated, the more reluctant they are to capitulate to the irrational panic evoked by fear-based tyranny.
Fear-based oppression can have a mental impact on individuals who do not have an immediate association with a psychological oppressive assault. A man who is affected by fear-based oppressor attack is no more likely to suffer the ill consequences of a psychiatric illness than a man whose only contact with the attack was watching it on TV. In this way, a wide variety of media fear monger interventions will actually affect the emotional well-being of individuals.
Individuals who experience sexual oppressor attacks but are not physically wounded are, for the most part, the last to be released from the site of the incident, because physicians generally centre their energies on the losses. These individuals typically recreate scenes of slaughter endlessly in their minds, and often wind up with depression, quickened breathing, disassociation, and an urge to avoid the slightest clamour. In the aftermath of fear-based oppressor attacks, individuals could end up helpless to concentrate on running a mill every day. For example, following the 9/11 attacks, 52% of Americans said they couldn’t focus on their jobs because of the attacks. The fear-based coercive attack has a damaging influence on young people in particular. It affects their tests, and a few teens tend to enjoy fear-based punishing exercises. Psychological aggression, in this sense, has a major effect on the everyday daily lives of people, regardless of whether they are specifically subjected to it.
At this point, the emotional consequences of psychological warfare are very much felt. That is less clear, in any event, is the emotional impact of rehashed psychological terrorist attacks. Will more fear-based oppressor attacks result in more emotional damage to the general population or does their social influence decline over time? We that believe that the progression of suicide attempts would have an increasingly negative mental effect on the population. The rehashed appearance of the horrific mishaps would make the left-handed open more awful and more vulnerable to stretch related problems.
The reason for this is what is known as the consequences of peace. The effect of mediation means that the amount of tension caused by the occurrence of horrible events gradually reduces. Thus, when fear-mutilation is a regular occurrence, a cycle of habituation and de-sharpening may take place, and individuals may end up visibly ready to preserve the consistency of everyday life. This means that individuals can work out how to deal with anxiety and psychologically adjust to it.
The social effect of terrorism means how people are suffering from terrorism. The socio-economic effect of terrorism is extremely serious and far-reaching, impacting many various facets of society. The impact of terrorism on society is the effect on people’s beliefs and attitudes. Big incidents have an effect on individuals who share their values and behaviours. Psychological findings suggest that negative information appears to be more closely tracked, more understood, and has a greater effect on evaluations and decisions than positive information. As suicide attacks are incidents of a very destructive nature, they can lead to changes in people’s views and attitudes. One such opinion concerns how people see other cultures, particularly the culture to which the terrorists belong. In a situation of inter-group confrontation, terrorist attacks raise divisive views and violent perceptions against the anti-terrorism organization they appear to serve.
A sense of victimhood is common to a society suffering from terrorism. Civilians are not supposed to be victims of political violence, and the population feels oppressed when it becomes the object of political violence, i.e. when they witness terrorist attacks. The further concentrated the civilian community, the greater the feeling of victimhood. That feeling of victimization, in effect, adds to the de-legitimization of the terrorists and of the public they pretend to serve.
The fear of terrorism raises stereotyping, leading to increasingly stereotypical stereotyping of members of the targeted community. There have been many examples of this, such as the emergence of “Islamophobia” in the United States following the 9/11 attacks, and the emergence in anti-Arab nationalism in Spain following the 2004 Madrid bombings. Likewise, in Israel during the Second Intifada, Israelis held highly negative Palestinian perceptions, seeing them as corrupt, evil, and with no respect for human life. The same is true of India-Pakistan, the Indians hold negative views about Pakistan, which is blamed for cross-border terrorism.
There have been several cases of violence and hate crimes targeting Muslims in the USA since the 9/11 attacks in the USA. Mosques and other religious structures have been targeted in the USA. Muslims have essentially started to face a lot of issues in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Another significant social effect of terrorism is a rise in ethnocentrism and xenophobia, as communities of people of the impacted country strengthen their unity in the face of abuse. This became noticeable in Russia in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks by Chechen rebels, as ethnic Russian nationalism became more common, while xenophobia grew.
It was also the case in the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, where there was a surge of national sentiment, such as the various American flags that decorated windows in New York City, a city where such open demonstrations of American pride are usually less frequent than elsewhere in the world. Ironically, during the second Intifada, repeated Palestinian militant attacks in Israel led to a revived sense of national solidarity among Israeli Jews.
Just as Muslims in the United States and Europe complained about intolerance, harassment and discrimination following terrorist attacks (most notably 9/11), Arabs in Israel made similar complaints during the Second Intifada.
Terrorism impacts the economy in two ways, combined with the damage caused by the act of terrorism and its indirect costs, which impact almost any part of the targeted state of the economy. The most obvious economic consequence of a terrorist attack is the loss to lives and properties at the scene of the incident. The indirect impact of terrorist attacks on the economy is more severe than the actual effects. The indirect economic consequences of terrorism are numerous and varied and are therefore difficult to quantify precisely. Terrorism can influence the economy in many ways. A long-standing terrorist activity will undoubtedly have an effect on the GDP of the state, as happened to Israel during the Second Intifada. Israel’s future GDP growth decreased sharply after the start of the Second Intifada. A terrorism activity will make the market more fragile, which in effect raises the danger to the government. With higher risk and the same or slightly lower potential return, foreign direct investment will decline in the economy of the targeted country. Since foreign investors have a wide variety of countries to invest in, some kind of instability, even one arising from minor terrorist actions, will lead to a decline in the inflow of foreign funds. Finally, the possibility of potential terrorist threats will decrease trust in the economy, which in effect impacts consumer purchasing, which is an important part of the economy.
Terrorism has a major effect on the country’s tourism industry, as tourist destinations can quickly be replaced and terrorist-affected regions typically are immediately unattractive to international visitors. Only a slight chance of terrorism contributes to opportunity. Tourists are going to move somewhere. Therefore, the more a country’s economy relies on tourism, the more terrorism can affect it.
At the end of the day, the economic consequences of terrorism rely on several factors. Significant economic losses are unlikely to occur as a result of a single terrorist attack, but a protracted campaign of terrorism may have a detrimental effect on GDP, especially in the case of a small country in which tourism is a major part of the national economy. Of example, comparatively developed nations are more likely to bear the effects of terrorism from policymakers than developing countries, where any reduction of national income will have an immediate effect on the well-to-do population. In the case of Israel, while terrorism undoubtedly harmed the Israeli economy during the second Intifada, it soon recovered and Israel resumed its economic growth.
The socioeconomic consequences of the attacks alluded to above also have political repercussions. The unifying impact that extremism has on Israeli-Jewish culture after the Second Intifada is indicative of what is known as the “Flag Rally” Syndrome, which is familiar among nations witnessing extremism. “Flag Rally Disorder” usually refers to passive public disapproval of the government and its policies. This collective response to terrorism is therefore consistent with the principle of program rationale that attacks raise social conservatism. The position that terrorism can play in promoting conservatism was shown in a study comparing Spanish perceptions before and after the Madrid bombings, which showed that the bombings enhanced commitment to conservative principles.
In certain cases, the political consequences of terrorism are evident and obvious, but they can also be difficult to determine exactly because, due to the multiplicity of possible triggers, particular political results can not be easily related to terrorism. The agenda or formal political action of a government can be the result of a variety of causes and may very only be reliably linked to a terrorist event or sequence of attacks. Take the example of the Sharon Government with the implementation of a strategy of disengagement, which led to the full removal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip in September 2005. Was this strategy the product of Palestinian terrorist attempts, as many Palestinians claimed at the time?
Even if Palestinian extremism was a cause, it was definitely just one of a variety of explanations for Sharon’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza. Although the political impact of terrorism is still difficult to determine, there should be no question that terrorism has political consequences and affects government policy, at least in democratic nations. The most effective way that extremism can affect the democratic process is by bringing in shifts in public opinion that policymakers prefer to take into account when formulating their policies. It may be very challenging for policymakers to avoid pressure from popular sentiment to respond forcefully to a terrorist attack. For an elected official, the political risk of under-reacting to a terrorist attack is often greater than the political cost of over-reacting. Failure to deter further attacks due to negligence can be detrimental to the life of a leader, whereas failure to avoid them by taking firm action can be viewed as having done everything practicable.
However, the effect of terrorism on public opinion is not clear and linear. There is no unified official reaction to a terrorist attack. Numerous aspects have an effect on how the public reacts to a terrorist attack, such as the magnitude and scale of the terrorist attack and the context in which it occurs. In fact, various groups within the general population react in specific ways to a terrorist attack. People with different policy priorities are likely to have different responses because the current policy recommendations act as a framework for collecting and interpreting new information.
Nor do extremist acts automatically alter people’s political views. The more confidence a person has in their beliefs, the less likely they are to alter as a result of a traumatic incident, such as a terrorist attack. In the end of the day, people’s attitudes are most likely to be affected by a terrorist attack as it gets a lot of public attention because it helps to raise its perceived relevance.
Regulations For Curbing Terrorism
International Legal Instruments
Prior to the adoption of Resolution 1373 (2001) and the creation of the Counter-Terrorism Commission, 12 of the existing 19 regional counter-terrorism measures have already been adopted by the international community. However, the rate of conformity by the United Nations Member States with these conventions and protocols was small.
As a result of the emphasis on fighting terrorism following the events of 11 September 2001 and the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which calls on States to become parties to these legal instruments, the rate of adherence has increased: Around two-thirds of the UN Member States have either ratified or acceded to at least 10 of the 19 treaties, and no nation has signed or been a party to at least one of them.
Between 1963 and 2004, under the auspices of the United Nations and its related organizations, the international community established 13 regional counter-terrorism mechanisms open to participation by all Member States. In 2005, the international community has adopted significant changes to three of these common instruments to directly counter the problem of terrorism; On 8 July of that year, the Member States adopted amendments to the Convention on the Physical Security of Nuclear Content, On 14 October, both the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Actions against the Protection of Maritime Shipping and the Protocol of 2005 to the Treaty on the Suppression of Unlawful Actions against the Protection of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf was adopted.
Since 1972, the General Assembly has focused on extremism as a foreign concern and, during the 1980s, discussed the topic intermittently during resolutions.
At this time, the Assembly also adopted two counter-terrorism instruments: the Convention on the Prevention and Prosecution of Offences Against Internationally Protected Persons, including the Diplomatic Agents (in 1973) and the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (in 1979).
In December 1994, the Assembly again discussed this issue in a Resolution on Steps to Eradicate International Terrorism (A / RES/49/60 pdf). In 1996, a supplementary resolution (A / RES/51/210 pdf) formed an ad hoc committee to draw up an international convention on the suppression of terrorist attacks and, concurrently, an international convention on the suppression of nuclear terrorism. To supplement the applicable current international agreements and, specifically, to discuss the means of further establishing a substantive legislative system for counter-terrorism treaties. This authority continued to be adopted and updated periodically by the General Assembly in its resolutions on steps to eradicate international terrorism.
In the last decade, Member States have concluded work on three new counter-terrorism treaties targeting different forms of terrorist activity: the 1997 International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; the 1999 International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Funding and the International Convention on the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism Actions. In the past decade, Member States have completed work on three separate anti-terrorism conventions addressing various types of terrorist activity: the 1997 International Convention on the Prohibition of Terrorist Bombings; the 1999 International Convention on the Prohibition of Terrorist Funding; and the International Convention on the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism.
It is also within the scope of the Ad Hoc Committee that the Member States have been discussing since 2000 a plan for a substantive convention on international terrorism.
Since 1963, the international community has established 19 international legal mechanisms to deter terrorist attacks. These instruments have been developed under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and are subject to participation by all Member States. This is a list of the 19 basic legislative instruments and the new changes that deal with extremism.
Instruments Regarding Civil Aviation
- Applies to acts affecting in-flight safety;
- authorizes the captain of the aircraft to enforce appropriate sanctions, including suspension, on any person who has cause to suspect that he or she has committed or is about to commit such an act, where required to ensure the safety of the aircraft; and
- It allows Contracting States to assume care of the criminal and to restore possession of the aircraft to the lawful controller.
- Rendering it an offense for any person on board an aircraft in flight to be “unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by other means of coercion, [to] capture or exercise control of that aircraft” or to attempt to do so;
- Requires parties to the convention to make hijackings punishable by “severe penalties”
- Requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution; and
- Requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the Convention.
- Constitutes an offence against any person, illegally and deliberately, to commit an act of aggression against a passenger onboard an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the health of the aircraft; to put an explosive device on an aircraft; to attempt such acts, or to be an accomplice of a person committing or attempting to execute such acts;
- Requires parties to the Convention to make offences punishable by “severe penalties”; and
- Requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution.
4.1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation
- Extends the provisions of the Montreal Convention to encompass terrorist acts at airports serving international civil aviation
- Criminalizes the act of using civil aircraft as a weapon to cause death, injury or damage;
- Criminalizes the act of using civilian aircraft to dispose of biological, chemical and nuclear (BCN) devices or related substances that cause harm, injury or destruction, or the act of using these substances to target civil aircraft;
- Criminalizes the act of unlawful transport of BCN weapons or certain related material;
- A cyber attack on air navigation facilities constitutes an offence;
- A threat to commit an offence may be an offence by itself if the threat is credible.
- Conspiracy to commit an offence, or its equivalence, is punishable.
- Supplements the Convention for the Prohibition of the Unlawful Capture of Aircraft by broadening its scope to include different types of aircraft hijacking, even by new technical means.;
- Incorporates the provisions of the Beijing Convention relating to a threat or conspiracy to commit an offence.
Instruments Regarding Protection Of International Staff
- 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons
- Defines an “internationally protected person” as a Head of State, Minister for Foreign Affairs, representative or official of a State or international organization who is entitled to special protection in a foreign State, and his/her family; and
- Requires parties to criminalize and make punishable “by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature” the intentional murder, kidnapping or other attacks upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person, a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations, or the means of transport of such person; a threat or attempt to commit such an attack; and an act “constituting participation as an accomplice”.
Instruments Regarding Nuclear Terrorism
- Covers a broad range of acts and possible targets, including nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors;
- Covers threats and attempts to commit such crimes or to participate in them, as an accomplice;
- Stipulates that offenders shall be either extradited or prosecuted;
- Encourages States to cooperate in preventing terrorist attacks by sharing information and assisting each other in connection with criminal investigations and extradition proceedings; and
- Deals with both crisis situations (assisting States to solve the situation) and post-crisis situations (rendering nuclear material safe through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Instruments Regarding Financing Of Terrorism
- Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;
- Commits States to hold those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts; and
- Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other States on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy is no longer adequate justification for refusing to cooperate.
Instruments Regarding Terrorist Bombings
- Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
Instruments Regarding Explosive Materials
- Designed to control and limit the used of unmarked and undetectable plastic explosives
- Parties are obligated in their respective territories to ensure effective control over “unmarked” plastic explosive, i.e., those that do not contain one of the detection agents described in the Technical Annex to the treaty;
- Each party must, inter alia, take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture of unmarked plastic explosives; prevent the movement of unmarked plastic explosives into or out of its territory; exercise strict and effective control over possession and transfer of unmarked explosives made or imported prior to the entry into force of the Convention; ensure that all stocks of unmarked explosives not held by the military or police are destroyed, consumed, marked, or rendered permanently ineffective within three years; take necessary measures to ensure that unmarked plastic explosives held by the military or police are destroyed, consumed, marked or rendered permanently ineffective within fifteen years; and, ensure the destruction, as soon as possible, of any unmarked explosives manufactured after the date of entry into force of the Convention for that State.
Instruments Regarding The Taking Of Hostages
- Provides that “any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostage within the meaning of this Convention”.
We know the devastating effects of terrorism and to curb them we do have certain regulations which are internationally applicable and are pretty helpful as well but they are not enough. If they were enough then we would not be facing any major attack of terrorism almost every year. So, we need more stringent regulations and to achieve this the whole world has to come together because the whole world is affected by this.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: