Terrorism (Noun.)
As one understands ‘terrorism’ but refuses to define it, Tulica Bhattacharya reporting from the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), traces the discussion on the groundwork for the description of terrorism.
The Delegate of the People’s Republic of China (China) stated that each state adopts different definitions of terrorism due to which a firm description has not been drafted so far. To this, the Delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany added that certain definitions are able to bypass certain laws. Justifying that it leads to disputes in recognition, the delegate stated that an international framework for the same is of utmost importance.
The Delegate of the Republic of Kenya quoted the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 stating “criminal acts …committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror … or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act which constitute offences … are under no circumstances justifiable…”[1]. The Delegate suggested that this definition can lay a preliminary framework for the definition of terrorism. The Delegate of China also stated United Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/60 and Resolution 60/288. The latter reaffirms the efforts of the United Nations “To continue to strengthen … in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts”.[2] The delegate placed special emphasis on ‘peacekeeping and peacebuilding’, claiming that these aspects can enrich the committee’s approach. Thus, reiterating to existing documentation, the delegates urged the council to utilise these clauses in order to arrive on a consensus.
The Delegate of the Republic of Togo stated that terrorism had led to the birth of strong religious stigma and had radicalised Islamic views. The Delegate also requested the committee to pay close attention to domestic terrorism. Citing the example of the 2011 Norway attacks, the Delegate insisted on inclusion of such attacks while agreeing on the definition of terrorism.
The Delegate of the Republic of Italy concluded by stating that by defining terrorism, one resorts to judgement. He elucidated that a state decides who is or is not a terrorist in accordance to their convenience. Citing adequate laws, conventions, and resolutions, it is time for the commission to interpret whether deliberation on a common definition would provide fruitful gains or waste precious time.
Sources:
[1] http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1566%20%282004%29
[2] http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm
(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)
The Delegate of the People’s Republic of China (China) stated that each state adopts different definitions of terrorism due to which a firm description has not been drafted so far. To this, the Delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany added that certain definitions are able to bypass certain laws. Justifying that it leads to disputes in recognition, the delegate stated that an international framework for the same is of utmost importance.
The Delegate of the Republic of Kenya quoted the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 stating “criminal acts …committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror … or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act which constitute offences … are under no circumstances justifiable…”[1]. The Delegate suggested that this definition can lay a preliminary framework for the definition of terrorism. The Delegate of China also stated United Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/60 and Resolution 60/288. The latter reaffirms the efforts of the United Nations “To continue to strengthen … in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts”.[2] The delegate placed special emphasis on ‘peacekeeping and peacebuilding’, claiming that these aspects can enrich the committee’s approach. Thus, reiterating to existing documentation, the delegates urged the council to utilise these clauses in order to arrive on a consensus.
The Delegate of the Republic of Togo stated that terrorism had led to the birth of strong religious stigma and had radicalised Islamic views. The Delegate also requested the committee to pay close attention to domestic terrorism. Citing the example of the 2011 Norway attacks, the Delegate insisted on inclusion of such attacks while agreeing on the definition of terrorism.
The Delegate of the Republic of Italy concluded by stating that by defining terrorism, one resorts to judgement. He elucidated that a state decides who is or is not a terrorist in accordance to their convenience. Citing adequate laws, conventions, and resolutions, it is time for the commission to interpret whether deliberation on a common definition would provide fruitful gains or waste precious time.
Sources:
[1] http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1566%20%282004%29
[2] http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm
(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)
At the Face of It
Tulica Bhattacharya, reporting from the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), traces the discussion on distinguishing the various faces of terrorism and methods of mitigating its spread.
As the debate proceeded towards the types of terrorism, the concept of state-funded terrorism was put to question. The Delegate of the State of Kuwait explained that when a nation supports terrorism and uses the same against its own people, it is defined as state-funded terrorism. The Delegate of the Republic Belarus added that supporting state-funded terrorism hampers the ties between states, as well as between the government and its people. He further added that it reduces accountability since the state is not explicitly involved in committing the crime.
The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania spoke about the various categorisation of non-state actors: political, non-political and religious. Claiming the last to be the most dangerous of its kind, the Delegate spoke about Islamophobia and how it both causes and affects terrorism. Comparing the proclamation of “Allah-Hu-Akbar” to “Christ, Oh saviour!”, the Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) condoned blaming of Islam as a contributor to terrorism. The delegate stated that this representation establishes the fate of fellow Iranians and other Muslims in an international platform.
While discussing the mitigation of the spread of terrorism, the subject of cybercrimes was brought to the table. The Delegate of Kenya stated that cyberattacks have grown both in number and capabilities. Fuelled by the rapid growth of technology, the delegate raised concerns about the readily available hacking tools. The Delegate of the Republic of Turkey claimed that terrorist organisations utilise the internet to spread extremist ideologies. Agreeing to the same, the Delegate of the Kingdom of Morocco suggested working towards restricting these cyberattacks.
Upon analysing these factors, the Delegate of the Russian Federation proposed the creation of a body consisting of a group of experts. With the aim of increasing accountability, the delegate explained that the body would be allotted a budget and investigative powers to counter terrorism.
To conclude, the Delegate of the Arab Republic of Egypt proclaimed that terrorist groups, irrespective of their affiliations, are a threat. The delegate concluded that extremism must be dealt with immediately and strictly—a notion that resonated among all member states. Scrutinising the acts of terrorism and deliberating upon its spread, the commission now proceeded to deliberate upon the international conventions discussing the same.
(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)
Justify Jurisdiction
Tulica Bhattacharya, reporting from the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), reflects the committee’s stance on the need for universal acceptance.
As the council resolved to believe that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been unable to deliver timely justice, the opinion poll questioned the delegates about the importance of consensus with regard to the same. A total of 18 member states agreed to an undermined competency due the absence of universal acceptance. In other words, majority believed that the ICC’s jurisdiction needs to be adopted unanimously to function in the true essence of justice. On the other hand, five member states refuted the argument. Consisting to be 22% of the committee’s strength, these nations held other factors responsible for the lack of effectiveness of the court. Among the five members, it was surprising to note that the delegates of the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan voted ‘No’.
Despite seeing an inclination towards the need for universal acceptance, it is also to be noted that the committee has also been unable to define ‘terrorism’ on an international platform. If fundamental terminologies and definitions differ from state to state, the reporter wonders whether the court can draft common laws.
Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)