JPI Spring 2018

frequently exercise power over non-combatants to serve their own interests, may it be realist power
or neorealist self-preservation.
This doesn’t delegitimize the validity of a definition of terrorism, but should be considered
within the public notion of terrorism in general. While terrorist attacks should be clearly judged,
terrorists should be considered as such only with respect to their operations and not their moral
validity. Thus, while I support the notion that moral relativism should not be considered to such a
degree that it prevents any kind of judgement, I do indeed strongly advocate for a stronger
consideration of the subjectivity of any definition as crucial to shape public perception in a
corresponding way. This point leads me to the last and final section that conclusively examines the
general possibility of an all-encompassing definition of terrorism.
POSSIBILITY OF A UNIVERSALLY-ACCEPTED DEFINITION
Regarding the provided evidence and arguments, I would strongly argue against the possibility
of a universal definition of terrorism due to the necessary relation of a definition to the country
defining it, as “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” 15 . However, if there is a
possibility to create a definition that incorporates biography, goals, methods and context - as suggested
by Ash in his work “State Terrorism” 16 - a more universal approach could be maintained. This might
require the collaborative work on a definition of terrorism agreed upon by all states, or at least states
that are directly affected by any given terrorist issue. Otherwise, such a definition simply provides
another opportunity for hegemonic states to legitimize their own aggressive foreign policy measures
under the guise of ‘counter-terrorism’.
As discussed throughout this essay, a particular emphasis on the issue of agency seems crucial
to avoid such an abuse of the definition. Legal measures that allow the international community to
not only condemn non-state terrorism but also condemn ‘terrorist acts’ performed by states should
be available. Until then, I do believe that a universal definition of terrorism is possible to establish,
while a definition of terrorism as a type of organization will only be possible as long as it is not simply
defined by states or societies with corresponding values and interests, but also via opening the
discussion to the entire international community.
15
Keeley, R. V. (2002). Trying to define terrorism. Middle East Polity.
16
Ash, T. G. (1991). State Terrorism. Cambridge University Press.
JPI Fall 2017, pg. 8