Joe Martella and Joseph “Joe” Sipos
Notre Dame High School
Indonesia
Legal Committee Topic: Defining Terrorism
20-23 November 2008
Over the past century, nations worldwide have witnessed an augmentation in
violence and the heinous acts of alleged terrorist organizations. Each year, thousands of
innocent citizens and entire structured societies fall victim to terrorism, citing the urgency
of this universal issue. This global concern has undoubtedly reached the United Nations,
yet the international organization has failed to compose a unanimous definition of
“terrorism” (Miller 78). Without a definition and decisive understanding of terrorism, the
United Nations cannot effectively combat the unforeseeable terrorist epidemic.
Response to this controversial issue has proved to be problematic due to a variety
of fundamental complexities that exist. Like all things, terrorism has and will continue to
evolve in our changing world. Because of this inevitable attribute, definitions will simply
become obsolete and ineffective overtime. An explicit definition may also prove to be
subjective and negate the objectives of the United Nations (Crenshaw 43). In this day
and age, acts of violence often flourish in environments of discontent, poverty, political
oppression, and human rights abuse, introducing the age-old issue of the freedom fighter
(International Conference). What is presumed as terrorist violence or coercion may very
well be justified measures, defended by international doctrine. (46) Article 3 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights supports the notion of the freedom fighter, by
granting every individual the right to life, liberty, and security of person (Tigar 329).
Seeing this, the Republic of Indonesia recommends that the United Nations consider the
plight of oppressed individuals as it continues its campaign against terrorist ambitions.
The United Nations should develop a subcommittee within the Legal Committee to pass
judgment on the aspirations of presumed terrorist and radical organizations (Miller 54).
If it is determined that an individual or organization committed obvious acts of violence
with the intent of simply hurting others, it will be seen that criminal prosecution is
employed. This subcommittee would also ensure that the term freedom fighter is not
exploited. The motives of these organizations would have to be in accordance with
United Nations policy and be deemed as worthy avocations of reform. Upon doing so,
the United Nations will be better equipped to discern the motives of repressive terrorists
and those of genuine freedom fighters
Most importantly, it is important that a general definition is drafted that
recognizes the malicious motives of blatantly terrorist groups. As former Attorney
General Ramsey Clark once noted, “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom
fighter.” However much one would like to support the goals of freedom fighters, certain
practices are simply barbaric, and would be deemed as a definite terrorist activity, among
others that would not be sanctioned by the United Nations, as determined by a
subcommittee. As former Attorney General Ramsey Clark once noted, “One person’s
terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” (McGraw). Despite the fact that the United
Nations already has a plan in place to combat terrorism, how efficient can it be if there is
no definition of terrorism officially recognized? Terrorism is ever-changing. The term
changes meaning more times than not. The definition agreed upon by this committee will
be one that has to change as well.
While violent conflicts have been characteristic of the human race throughout
history, a recent emphasis has been placed on interpreting these acts of violence as either
warfare, terrorism, or freedom fighting. While some argue that any intimidating or
violent act against a group of people is terrorism, modern conditions like environments of
discontent, exclusion, humiliation, poverty, political oppression, human rights abuse, and
regional conflicts reflect the more complicated matter that is at hand. In the face of
oppression and tyranny, individuals should have the right to rise against their oppressors,
even if it requires violent means. The importance is to differentiate between a genuine
freedom fighting cause, and a blatant terrorist act of intimidation and coercion.
Works Cited
Crenshaw, Martha. Terrorism and International Cooperation. New York: Institute for
East-West Security Studies, Inc., 1989.
Higgins, Rosalyn, ed. Terrorism and International Law. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Miller, Seumas. Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Ethics and Liberal Democracy.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.
Tigar, Michael E. Thinking About Terrorism. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2007.