Terrorism – definitions,
characterisations and representations
Peter Beaney
Faculty of Arts Media
and Design
Introduction



2
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon; although it could be
argued that what we regard as ‘terrorism’ has shifted in
meaning over time. This is particularly the case with regard
to the difference between state and non-state terror (see
below).
Regardless, however, of the origin of the terroristic
behaviour terrorism can be seen as a specific strategy,
amongst others, used in order to influence, dominate or
repress the government, powerful organisations or the
general population.
In this respect, it is one amongst a number of different
strategies – including direct action, guerrilla warfare,
political protest, and social mobilization – which may be
used in isolation or in combination. Indeed, it is sometimes
difficult to decide where ‘terrorism’ begins and other forms
of social and political action begins.
Definitions


3
Practically every discussion of terrorism includes some
mention of the difficulties of defining it in any way which is
likely to achieve even a basic consensus.
As noted above, although terrorism has come to be
associated in the contemporary period with ‘terror’ which
is directed at the state or the ruling groups in society, in
the past it was more frequently associated with the terror
directed by the state against the civilian population. This
usage dates from at least the ‘reign of terror’, directed by
Robespierre, which followed the French revolution and has
been used in relation to historical examples such as the
Stalinist regime in the former USSR and the fascist regime
in Germany as well as the more recent examples of Idi
Amin in Uganda and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. (NB/
we will deal with this to some extent in the section on
genocide).
Definitions


4
Such activities are not unconnected with the
assassinations, mass killings and genocide
which are frequently either the accompaniments
or components of state terror.
Here, however, we will be focusing on the more
familiar phenomenon of non-state terror
involving smaller groups and organisations that
occupy a subordinate or marginal position in
relation to the state or a number of related states.
Definitions

5
We will also be looking at the international and
transnational aspects of these ‘terrorist’
activities. Non-state terrorism is in itself a large
and complex topic and not one therefore that can
be dealt with easily. We will, however, touch on
aspects of state terror in the section on genocide
and it relates to some extent to the earlier work
which we did on state crime.
Problems of Definition



6
In addition to the distinction between state and nonstate terror a number of initial points can be made about
the problem of defining terrorism.
Firstly, it is invariably pointed out that the label
‘terrorist’ tends to be applied as a pejorative term to
groups which are seen as a threat to the state applying
the term.
Thus, groups carrying out similar activities might be
termed ‘terrorist’, ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘national
resistance’ groups depending upon the political stance
of the labeller. In the same vein, a number of
contemporary states have come into existence through
struggles which at the time were considered terrorist
but which subsequently came to be seen as
revolutionary or nationalist – the state of Israel being a
prominent example.
Problems of Definition


7
Similarly, activities which are labelled ‘terrorist’
by a state domestically may be seen as
‘liberation struggles’ by other states or by world
opinion more generally. The struggle against
apartheid in South Africa illustrates this issue
perfectly.
Many notorious ‘terrorists’ have been
rehabilitated as respectable political leaders
when their struggles have been successful and
this illustrates, perhaps, the relativity of the
criminalisation process.
Problems of Definition


8
Secondly, this introduces a more general point which
has been prominent in the sociology of deviance (see
Sage Dictionary of Criminology), which is that there
are no acts which are inherently or essentially
deviant but only acts which are labelled as such.
Labelling is, in fact, a very powerful social process
which is part of and can seriously affect, power
relationships. Clearly, those who have the power to
apply and have generally accepted their particular
labels are in a position to influence the way in which
the (deviant) groups are treated.
Problems of Definition


9
One example of this is the way in which both
feminists and Fenians in C19 and C20 struggled to
have themselves treated as political rather than
common criminals.
The latter meant that not only could they be treated
differently in penal terms but that they were also seen
differently in terms of how the ‘public’, government
and other states perceived their struggles. This could
be more than ideological in that it affected – and still
affects – how groups are treated in terms of the law
and diplomacy.
What is crime and what is criminal
justice?
“[In the 19th century there] … was the possibility that
those who defined themselves as political prisoners
could, through their resistance to the process of
criminalisation and representation of themselves as
victims and martyrs, gain considerable public sympathy
with demands for clemency or outright amnesty. By
demanding that their acts be considered in terms of
intention rather than in terms of the acts themselves,
political offenders tested to the limits the questions: what
is crime? and what is criminal justice?” (McLaughlin, E.,
2001, 2nd edn., ‘Political violence, terrorism and states of
fear’, in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E., eds., The
Problem of Crime. Page 243)
10
Problems of Definition


11
Thirdly, there is a broad division between those –
both academics and state agencies – who see
terrorism as essentially ‘political’, and therefore not
an issue for criminology and criminal justice, and
those (more radical) criminologists who regard
terrorism as part of a broader movement to include
state crimes and crimes against humanity within the
remit of criminology (an issue we addressed in the
section on ‘State Crime’).
Again this has practical as well as theoretical
implications since political prisoners can be granted
amnesty at the end of an armed struggle whereas this
is unlikely to be applied to ‘common crimes’.
Problems of Definition


12
Thus, the IRA in Northern Ireland have in the main
managed to achieve rehabilitation, although there are
still those who believe the IRA guilty of violent crimes –
as well as common crimes that were perhaps not related
to their political activities – which they ought to be
prosecuted for.
Fourthly, there is a difficulty with regard to which acts
ought to be treated as ‘terrorist’. Terrorists typically
employ a very wide range of actions in order to achieve
their aims – everything from kidnappings and
assassinations to mass killings – but some of these
actions are sometimes employed by social and political
groups engaged in, for example, direct action.
Problems of Definition


13
It is possible, therefore, that groups such as
Greenpeace could be prosecuted under terrorist
legislation which wasn’t put on the statute book for this
purpose. The latter would not generally be treated in the
same way as terrorism but there have been moves in
recent years to criminalise actions which lead to or
promote terrorism – particularly in relation to terrorist
financing - and this has been controversial because of
the wider net that it casts and the potential for the
legislation to be misused.
Fifthly, terrorism has a complex relationship with
conventional crime and with organised crime in
particular, such that it can be difficult to decide where
one begins and another ends.
Problems of Definition

14
Terrorists, in pursuit of their social and political aims,
may commit a very wide range of different crimes –
i.e. those which are illegal under domestic or
international criminal law – in order, for example, to
support terrorist actions or provide funding (e.g.
robbing banks; something which Stalin, incidentally,
specialised in before becoming leader of the USSR).
When in court, however, those arraigned as terrorists
will typically argue that these actions are not criminal
at all but are pursuant to their overall social and
political aims.
Problems of Definition

15
On the other hand, the problem of funding in
particular may result in terrorist organisations either
engaging in crimes normally committed by organised
criminal groups or collaborating with the latter to
achieve the same objective. It is well known, for
example, that groups such as the ‘Shining Path’
(Peru) in Latin America and the Taliban in
Afghanistan have actively used the illegal drugs trade
to finance their operations.
Characterisation and Representation


16
Beyond the issue of definition, which we will come back to,
are broader issues of what we might term characterisation
and representation. Both academics and members of the
public and security communities may not employ formal
definitions but rather they will (i) embed implicit definitions
in their analysis and/or (ii) directly or indirectly
characterise the phenomenon they are dealing with
through their choice of descriptive and analytic language.
At the same time, the media, popular culture and public
and political debate – as well as socialisation and
education – all employ particular ways of representing
terrorism. Typically, this might involve, for example, a
characterisation of ‘terrorists’ as pathologically deranged,
fanatical and clandestine groups which are revolutionary,
radical or extremist in nature and target innocent and
defenceless civilians.
Characterisation and Representation


17
Recently, such characterisations have been augmented by
reference to rogue or criminal states which support,
promote or provide a refuge for terrorism. Such
characterisations, however, rarely go uncontested and it is
perhaps best to understand the process of representation
as one where various forms of representation vie with each
other for acceptance and legitimacy.
This isn’t, however, an undifferentiated process as some
participants have more power than others to influence the
process of representation whilst yet others may be
partially or wholly marginalised. This is a commonplace of
sociological analysis of the media and of the news media
in particular; and, moreover, relates strongly to the point
made earlier about labelling.
George Bush: terrorists and freedom
fighters


18
Consider, for example, this attempt to distinguish between
‘terrorists’ and ‘freedom fighters’.
“In seeking to destroy freedom and democracy, terrorists
deliberately target non-combatants for their own cynical
purposes. They kill and maim defenceless men, women and
children. They murder judges, newspaper reporters, elected
officials, government administrators, labour leaders, policemen,
priests and others who defend the values of civilized society.
Freedom fighters, in contrast, seek to adhere to international law
and civilized standards of conduct. They attack military targets,
not defenceless citizens. Non-combatant casualties in this
context are an aberration or attributable to the fortunes of war.
They are not the result of deliberate policy designed to terrorize
the opposition. The difference between the terrorists and the
freedom fighters is as profound as it is obvious. To permit the
distinction to become blurred is to play into the terrorists’
hands”. (George Bush, Introduction to Vice President’s Taskforce
report; full text available at: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/48.pdf,
accessed: 6 Nov 09)
Characterisation and Representation

19
In this respect there is a constant struggle for what Green
and Ward (2004) – following Gramsci – refer to as
‘hegemony’. This is in many respects a cultural process
but it is culture informed by power relations. Those in
power- whether political or economic – have the resources
and influence to try to establish their own representations
as the ‘common sense’ of that particular era. Against this
alternative or opposing representations have to struggle to
be heard let alone accepted. In a similar vein, the
contestation that takes place may encourage all parties,
but in particular those in power who have the most to gain
or hide, to consciously manipulate the process of
representation in order to ensure that the truth which is
printed, broadcast or televised is the truth which they want
the public to hear.
Characterisation and Representation

20
Hence the common saying that ‘truth is the first casualty of
war’ and this has particular applicability to those recent
conflict situations – Iraq, Afghanistan – where the military
have become involved in complex manoeuvres to ensure
that the official version of the truth is the accepted one.
Journalists now have real time access to global
communications networks almost anywhere in the world
and this makes them a formidable group to control. On the
other hand, strategies to control, delude and exclude them
have also become more sophisticated. The question of
how terrorism (and counter-terrorism) is represented,
however, is far more complex than such a brief discussion
would indicate.
Definitions Again

21
Returning to questions of definition again there are a
number of ways of dealing with this beyond simply
articulating yet another formal definition (one source
refers to “the 200 or so extant definitions of
terrorism”, Whittaker, D.J., ed., 2007, The Terrorism
Reader. Page 10). The first is to extract from the main
definitions some of their key shared characteristics
as a way of identifying, at least, the broad field or
discourse within which we are operating.
Definitions Again

1.
2.
3.
22
Drawing upon various sources we can suggest the
following as some of the main ingredients of
common definitions of terrorism, i.e. that terrorism
involves:
The premeditated and calculated use or threat of serious
violence
The use of violence against non-combatants, innocent
civilians and symbolic or infrastructural targets
The intention to (i) intimidate or coerce the government
and civilian population (ii) instil terror, fear and anxiety in
the public at large and (iii) influence an audience wider
than that which is immediately affected by the terrorist
action
Definitions Again


23
The above incorporates some of – but by no means all –
the elements of some of the standard official and academic
definitions of ‘terrorism’. It draws, for example, on
definitions articulated by the US State and Defense
Departments, FBI and UK government. It is, however,
common practice now for even official organisations to
start by suggesting that “there is no commonly accepted
definition of terrorism”.
Clearly in the case of global – or the more controversial
‘transnational’ – terrorism there is (i) an element of not
only influencing a wider community but a world community
and (ii) the issue of to what extent actions and activities
transcend national borders (Whittaker, op cit, p.4).
Definitions Again


24
Even so there are those that would argue that
definitions of terrorism and terrorists are so
ideologically loaded that it is virtually impossible to
arrive at any definition which will be widely accepted or
anything more than a fiction or a loaded legislative tool.
The second main approach is to employ a typology in
place of or in addition to a formal definition. Thus
Dekmejian (R.H. Dekmejian, 2007, Spectrum of Terror: p.
10), for example, suggests the following typology which
identifies a spectrum of different forms of terrorism.
Typology of Terrorism





25
Individual (assassins, bombers)
Subnational (ethnic nationalists, religious
militants)
Transnational (transnational terrorist
organisations)
State (secret police, special forces, military etc)
Politicide/genocide (secret police, special forces,
military etc)
Definitions Again

26
Although this has the unfortunate disadvantage of
focusing exclusively on actors and includes both
state and non-state forms it does usefully
distinguish, as part of a continuum, some of the main
forms which terrorist activity can take. It does,
however, make the process of definition more
difficult by identifying the extremely different forms,
motivations and actors that are involved; which
suggests perhaps that the term needs to be
abandoned or deconstructed in favour of some more
differentiated typology of ‘politically motivated
crime’.
Definitions Again

27
This chimes well with what has already been said
above about how terrorism can also be seen as part
of a portfolio of actions taken by dissident groups
that are opposed to the state and are willing to
engage in any activity which will further their cause.
The boundaries between terror, war, armed conflict,
civil war and civil disobedience can be very
malleable.
Counter-terrorism: your reading

28
You are going to read into the subject of counterterrorism as one of the activities for the section on
terrorism. The chapter in Global Terrorism (2008)
represents a very practical and policy-orientated
attempt to cover the whole spectrum of different state
strategies dealing with terrorism. It doesn’t question the
legitimacy of these strategies in any clear way but
assumes that ‘terrorism’ has to be dealt with in one way
or another and the main problem is to weigh up the
advantages and disadvantages of the various methods
employed. This is indicated by the relatively brief and
instrumental treatment it gives to human rights’
considerations.
Counter-terrorism: your reading

29
It also very much assumes that states are the key
actors involved and international organisations aren’t
given a very clear role. It does, however, provide a
very useful overview of the approaches that have
been taken and a comparative analysis of the
success and failure of various states in pursuing
their own counter-terrorism strategies. What might be
added to this is an awareness of the very complex
historical and contextual factors that may be
influential in deciding why and when that particular
strategy will be successful.
The history of terrorism: your
reading

30
One of the other readings, which addresses the
historical development of terrorism, is ‘The four
waves of terrorism’ by David Rapoport. This is a very
detailed attempt by a noted international authority on
terrorism to map out what he sees as ‘long waves’ of
terrorist activity. What he means by this is that there
seem, retrospectively, to have been historical periods
in which particular types of terrorism dominated.
Modern terrorist activity is conventionally dated from
the late 19th century when anarchist and other groups
began to find notoriety because of their political
assassinations and radical politics. This is the first
wave.
The history of terrorism : your
reading



31
The second wave is what Rapport calls the
‘anticolonial wave’ and involved attempts to
undermine and remove colonial powers. This he
dates from about the 1920s to the 1960s.
The latter decade saw the emergence of the third
wave which is ‘new left’ terrorism carried out by left
wing groups engaging in mainly urban bombings,
kidnappings etc but there were also significant
nationalist and separatist movements.
Finally, and most controversially, Rapoport points to
a fourth and more recent wave which he calls, in
common with other commentators, a ‘religious’ and
international wave.
The history of terrorism : your
reading


32
Rapoport’s treatments of this subject is sophisticated and
he very usefully refers to a very large number of cases,
makes comparisons between them, and deals clearly with
a vast sweep of history.
You may, however, want to think carefully about some of
his judgements. In particular, (a) are these long waves
quite as coherent as he suggests and (b) is the final wave –
in which he sees Islam as playing a central role – wholly
defined by religion and internationalism? What about right
wing terrorism which has been so important in the USA
and recently in Norway?
Counter-terrorism: your reading

The obvious questions are:
(i) to what extent this contravened fundamental
human rights
(ii) was effective (compare Lutz and Lutz on this)
(iii) represented a deepening rather than an
aberration in terms of the USA’s policies on counterterrorism (i.e. is this an extension and development
of cold war policies) and
(iv) to what extent the new administration will make
fundamental rather than cosmetic changes in these
policies.
33
Counterterrorism

34
It is worth concluding with some further thoughts about
counterterrorism. This embraces a very wide range of
governmental and inter-governmental strategies and
practices. Terrorism can to some extent be defined in
terms of the aims and means it deploys. Thus as Rapoport
(above) makes clear different groups have very different
rationales for their activities and may have quite
sophisticated social, ideological and political justifications
for their actions. They also employ a very wide range of
methods, take advantage of technological change (from
gunpowder to chemical weapons) and can have a range of
transnational links. Eve in the 19th century anarchist
revolutionaries formed a very tight nit group across
Russia, Europe and North America.
Counterterrorism


35
Measures to deal with terrorism internationally,
however, also date back to the 19th century with the
League of Nations introducing an international
convention to deal with the threat of terrorism and
coordinate international efforts in this respect. During
the 20th century this activity – which had sometimes
been more nominal than actual – was extended to cover
specific terrorist activities such as hijackings and
hostage taking as these achieved a higher international
profile.
After 9/11 greater surveillance of terrorists and possible
terrorist became a much greater priority and this was
aided by the ICT revolution that leads towards very high
level surveillance of communications at all levels from
mobile phones to satellites.
Counterterrorism

36
With the declaration of the ‘war on terror’ this became a
coordinated strategy on the part of the USA and its allies to
deal with terrorism at a global level. New legislation was
introduced domestically, such as the US PATRIOT Act, and
new bodies were deployed to deal with terrorist threats at the
domestic level. International activity, however, was most
dramatic and this, as is well known, embraced a range of
actions from direct military intervention in states which were
seen as harbouring terrorists to attempts to control, terrorist
financing and the use of a range of practices, such as
extraordinary rendition, which were highly controversial if not
illegal in terms of both national and international law. Human
rights abuses became common place but were justified in
terms of the need to pursue an extraordinary war.
Counterterrorism


37
The Bush government sought to change some of the
fundamental rules of international law in order to carry
out its ‘war on terrorism’. The use of ‘extraordinary
rendition’, detention centres in third party countries and
practices tantamount to torture (‘waterboarding’) raised
severe human rights issues as well as threatening to
undermine the , admittedly limited, legitimacy that
international law might hold.
The context for this was the conflicts which the USA
had been drawn into as a result of its war on terror
(although you could argue that these conflicts have
much deeper roots). As we have seen in the section on
war crimes some have argued that the war on Iraq,
unsupported as it was by the UN, was a crime of
aggression by the UK and USA.
Counterterrorism



38
It has also been argued that other crimes have been
committed in terms of, for example, the seizure of Iraqi
assets, the killing of civilians, the destruction of essential
infrastructure, and the failure to protect Iraq’s cultural
heritage. Similar accusations have been made with respect to
the Afghanistan war.
Jamieson and McEvoy in an article entitled ‘State crime by
proxy and by juridical othering’ (British Jl. Of Criminology,
vol 45, no 4) also usefully highlight how transnational the ‘war
on terror’ has been.
With the advent of the Obama administration there was
widespread expectation that the war on terror would
disappear. Critics however would suggest that this is far from
being the case and that the ‘war’ has rather taken a different
course. At the same time, aspects of the Bush period remain –
e.g. Guantanamo Bay – despite Obama’s resolution to
expunge them.
Counterterrorism

39
The Bush government took full advantage of all of the
USA’s formidable international resources and alliances in
order to avoid having to obey the letter of domestic law
and international humanitarian law. This involved not only
extraordinary rendition and ‘offshore prisons’ such as
Guantanamo Bay but also the use of prisons in friendly
third party countries which are notorious in human rights
terms. The Obama administration, despite its firmer
commitment to liberal principles and international law, has
been heavily criticised for the way that it carried out its
assassination of bin Laden and there are real questions
about the extent to which its prepared to ignore nation
state territoriality.
Counterterrorism

The obvious questions are:
(1) to what extent US policies have (a) contravened
fundamental human rights (b) have been effective
(compare Lutz and Lutz with Jamieson and McEvoy
on this) and (c) have represented a deepening rather
than an aberration in terms of the USA’s policies on
counter-terrorism (i.e. is this an extension and
development of cold war policies rather than a
complete break) and
(2) to what extent the new Obama administration has
made fundamental rather than cosmetic changes in
counterterrorism policies.
40
Final Words: the Omagh Bombing
“I can only say to the people who committed that act
of appalling violence that those children did not
deserve what they went through and to those who let
off that sort of bomb in that area is the most cruel
and inhumane thing I have seen in my life. I only
hope the people who did it will now stop. I don’t want
them punished for what they did. I just want them to
say now that they will finish it, they will stop it and
they won’t do it to anybody else’s children.”
(Victor Barker, father of 12 year-old James Barker, who died in
the Omagh Bombing by the Real IRA in August 1998. Quoted in
McLaughlin, op cit: 295)
41