DEFINITION OF TERRORISMDefinitions provided by journalists, governmental spokespersons and public debaters often reflect the purely political definition, and, more importantly, tend to be descriptive. One such example is that provided by Schmid. He writes: “Terrorism is a method of combat in which random or symbolic victims serve as an instrumental target of violence. These instrumental victims share group or class characteristics which form the basis for their selection for victimization. Through previous use of violence or the credible threat of violence other members of that group or class are put in a state of chronic fear (terror).This group or class, whose members’ sense of security is purposefully undermined, is the target of terror. The victimization of the target of violence is considered abnormal by most observers from the witnessing audience on the basis of its atrocity, the time (e.g., peacetime) or place (not battlefield) of victimization, or the disregard for rules of combat accepted in conventional warfare. The norm violation creates an attentive audience beyond the target of terror; sectors of this audience might in turn form the main object of manipulation. The purpose of this indirect method of combat is either to immobilize the target of terror in order to produce disorientation and/or compliance or to mobilize secondary targets of demands (e.g., a government) or targets of attention (e.g., public opinion) to changes of attitude or behaviour favouring the short or long term interests of the users of this method of combat.” To some scholars, the purely political definition of terrorism was not only confusing, but was also based on, among other things, forms of violence that are restricted to violence against a government. Yet, upon closer investigation, it is apparent that even acts of violence which originate in state governments, or in their authorities, can be terrorism, as for example, state-inspired or state-sponsored terrorism. Consequently, terrorism is not necessarily the same thing as violence against a government, and that the term " terrorism" is not to be confused with guerrilla war, riots, etc. On the other hand, some scholars prefer to look at the nature of the terrorist act itself, rather than address terrorism in abstract legal norms. Thus, Brian Jenkins, in his down to earth approach, opines that: " All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violations of the rules of war, if a state of war existed. All involve violence or the threat of violence, often coupled with specific demands. The targets are mainly civilians. The motives are political. The actions generally are designed to achieve maximum publicity. The perpetrators are usually members of an organized group, and unlike other criminals, they often claim credit for the act. (This is a true hallmark of terrorism.) And, finally, it is intrinsic to a terrorist act that it is usually intended to produce psychological effects far beyond the immediate physical damage. One person’s terrorist is everyone’s terrorist." According to Richard Clutterbuck, an ancient Chinese proverb tells it all: " Kill one to frighten ten thousand". Thus, in order to produce this fear, the selected victims are usually civilians, not soldiers or policemen. Killing a soldier does not frighten his ten thousand comrades. On the contrary, their reaction is to urge their officers to lead them out with their guns to find the killer. But if a member of a family is killed by political terrorists on the street outside his home, everyone on that street is in terror lest it happens to them. Thus, according to this theory: " terrorism is theatre; it is aimed at the audience rather than at the victim." On his part, Yoram Dinstein makes a very personal definition of terrorism. He writes: “I regard terrorism as any unlawful act of violence committed with a view to terrorizing. To my mind, it is no accident that the term " terrorism" has been chosen to describe a certain pattern of human conduct. Terrorism is a derivative of terror. My contention is that almost any crime can amount to an act of terrorism, provided that it is perpetrated in order to instill fear. The same crime will not qualify as an act of terrorism if its motive or purpose is not to terrorize.”
1. What is international terrorism? 2. What definitions of terrorism do you know? 3. What are the objectives of terrorism? 4. Do you think there is a difference between terms “warfare” and “terrorism”? 5. What methods of terrorism do you know?
Визначення, тероризм, жертва, загроза, насилля, мета, жорстокість, мирний час, поведінка, партизанська війна, повстання, злочинець, страх, злочин, мотив.
|
