DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM AND TERRORIST ACTS/ OFFENCES
A. DEFINITIONS IN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
A. 1. ARAB CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
Adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice
Cairo, April 1998

Article 2: Terrorism
Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a (sic) national resources.

Article 3: Terrorist offence
Any offence or attempted offence committed in furtherance of a terrorist objective in any of the Contracting States, or against their nationals, property or interests, that is punishable by their domestic law. The offences stipulated in the following conventions, except where conventions have not been ratified by Contracting States or where offences have been excluded by their legislation, shall also be regarded as terrorist offences:
(a) The Tokyo Convention on offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, of 14 September 1963;
(b) The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, of 16 December 1970;
(c) The Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, of 23 September 1971, and the Protocol thereto of 10 May 1984;
(d) The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, of 14 December 1973;
(e) The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, of 17 December 1979;
(f) The provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of 1982, relating to piracy on the high seas.

Article 2
(a) All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence. This provision shall not apply to any act prejudicing the territorial integrity of any Arab State.
(b) None of the terrorist offences indicated in the preceding article shall be regarded as a political offence. In the application of this Convention, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence, even if committed for political motives:
(i) Attacks on the kings, Heads of State or rulers of the contracting States or on their spouses and families;
(ii) Attacks on crown princes, vice-presidents, prime ministers or ministers in any of the Contracting States;
(iii) Attacks on persons enjoying diplomatic immunity, including ambassadors and diplomats serving in or accredited to the Contracting States;
(iv) Premeditated murder or theft accompanied by the use of force directed against individuals, the authorities or means of transport and communications;
(v) Acts of sabotage and destruction of public property and property assigned to a public service, even if owned by another Contracting State;
(vi) The manufacture, illicit trade in or possession of weapons, munitions or explosives, or other items that may be used to commit terrorist offences.

A.2. ORGANISATION OF AFRICAN UNITY(OAU) CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF TERRORISM

Adopted at Algiers on 14 July 1999 (Also referred to as the "Algiers Convention")

Terrorism: No definition of "terrorism" in OAU Convention.

"Terrorist act" defined in Article 1 Par 3: as

"Terrorist act" means:

(a) any act which is a violation of the criminal laws of a State Party and
which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause
serious injury or death to, any person, any number or group of
persons or causes or may cause damage to public or private property,
natural resources, environmental or cultural heritage and is
calculated or intended to:
(i) intimidate, put in fear, force, coerce or induce any government,
body, institution, the general public or any segment thereof, to
do or abstain from doing any act, or to adopt or abandon a
particular standpoint, or to act according to certain principles;
or
(ii) disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service
to the public or to create a public emergency; or
(iii) create general insurrection in a State.
(b) any promotion, sponsoring, contribution to, command, aid,
incitement, encouragement, attempt, threat, conspiracy, organizing,
or procurement of any person, with the intent to commit any act
referred to in paragraph (a) (i) to(iii).
".

Article 3, Par 1 provides that:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1, the struggle waged by
peoples in accordance with the principles of international law for their
liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against
colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces
shall not be considered as terrorist acts.".

B. DEFINITIONS IN LEGISLATION.

B.1. UNITED KINGDOM

Anti Terrorism Act, 2000

Section 1(1) In this Act, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
the action falls within subsection (2),
the use or threat is designed to influence the Government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and
the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

involves serious violence against a person,
involves serious damage to property,
endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

In this section-

"action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
"the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organization.

INDIA

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ORDINANCE, 2001 (POTO)

Contains no definition of "terrorism", but defines "terrorist act: as:

An act done by using weapons and explosive substances or other methods in a manner as to cause or likely to cause death or injuries to any person or loss or damage to property or disruption of essential supplies and services or by any other means necessary with intent to threaten the unity and integrity of India or to strike terror in any section of the people.

AUSTRALIA

SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM BILL, 2002

The Proposed section 100.1(2) sets out the types of action referred to in the proposed subsection 100.1 that can constitute a "terrorist act". The types of actions listed involve serious harm, damage or disruption. A terrorist act includes action that involves serious harm to a person or serious damage t property, endangers life, creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or asection of the public, or is designed to seriously interfere with, disrupt, or destroy an electronic system. Electronic systems include information systems; telecommunications systems; financial systems; and systems used for essential government services, essential public utilities and transport providers. Proposed subsection 100.1(3) provides that a reference to any person or property is a reference to any person or property within or outside Australia. It also provides that a reference to the public includes a reference to th public of a foreign country.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Article 205 of the Criminal Code of 1997, defines "terrorism’ as: " Causing the (sic) explosion or committing arson or other acts entailing risk of loss of human life, substantial damage to property, or other consequences dangerous to society, if these acts are committed for purposes of disrupting public safety, terrorizing the population or influencing the adoption of decisions by the authorities, and also threatening to commit such acts for the same purposes.

FRANCE

French Penal Code, Article 421-1

French law considers as a terrorist offence not only a terrorist attack, but many other offences committed "in relation to an individual or collective undertaking that has the aim of seriously disrupting public order through intimidation or terror".

Act of 9 September 1986

The French Penal Code (arts. 421-1 et seq.) defines acts of terrorism as independent offences, that is, a separate category of offences subject to more severe penalties than are violations of ordinary criminal law. The legislation defines terrorism as an individual or collective undertaking, the aim of which is to cause serious damage to public order by means of intimidation or terror. Terrorist activity is defined in criminal law, however, by combining two criteria:
- Firstly, the existence of an offence or serious crime under ordinary criminal law, as defined in the Penal Code. This concerns only certain offences and serious crimes included in a list established under the Penal Code. The list was added to in 1994 (new Penal Code) and lastly in 1996, and currently includes the following:
Deliberate attacks upon the life or physical integrity of the person; and abductions; hijacking of aircraft, ships or any other means of transport;

Theft, extortion, destruction, damage or deterioration, and certain computer-related crimes;
Offences in relation to combat groups and disbanded movements;
The manufacture or possession of deadly or explosive devices or machines (definition extended to biological or toxin-based weapons);
Receiving the products of the aforementioned offences.
Insider trading and money-laundering were recently added to this list by the Act of 15 of November 2001.

- Secondly, the connection between these offences or serious crimes and an individual or collective undertaking whose aim is to cause a serious disturbance to public order by means of intimidation or terror. The following are specifically criminalized:
Since 1994, acts of environmental terrorism (introducing into the atmosphere, upon or under the ground or into any waters, including those of the territorial sea, a substance that is likely to endanger the health of persons or animals or the natural environment);
Since 1996, criminal conspiracy of a terrorist nature (participation in a group or an understanding established for the purpose of preparing, by means of one or more material actions, one of the aforementioned acts of terrorism);
These offences thus defined are considered acts of terrorism and criminalized as separate offences under the new Penal Code, with particularly heavy penalties.

DEFINITIONS IN LITERATURE


WURTH (1941)
"……… we propose the following definition of criminal political terrorism, that is to say, terrorism in its strict meaning, ‘Terrorism is a method of action by which the agent tends to produce terror to impose his domination on the State in order to transform or destroy it"." [page 119]

LEIDEN and SCHMITT (1968)
"But terror can be conceptualized more broadly than this : it is the emanation of an atmosphere of fear and despair, generally accompanied by seemingly senseless and wanton threats to life and property, carried out in normless ways by the plural centers of power. Terror, as conceived here, is a congeries of acts, specifically all those contributing to such an atmosphere of despair: murder, assassination, sabotage and subversion, the destruction of public records, the spreading of rumor, the closing of churches, the sequestration of property, the breakdown of criminal law enforcement, the prostitution of the courts, the narcosis of the press – all these, as they contribute to a common end, constitute terror. (…) Terror is an atmosphere of despair. What value can such an atmosphere have? The answer lies, for both those who agitate and those who defend, in the effects that this atmosphere has on the mass and the elite, effects not readily attainable by normal means of persuasion and coercion. (…) The creation of an atmosphere of despair breaks down the resistance of those who need to be persuaded; they are to be so shocked and numbed, so weakened and demoralized, and so pessimistic of hope that they become amenable to anything that promises release from tension. It is possible for agitators to produce such despair in the minds of the ruling elite or in those of the mass; it is also sometimes possible for a government to destroy and apposition by terror rather than to mollify it by more normal political methods." [Page 122]

NEALE (1973)
"Symbolic act entailing the use or threat of violence and designed to influence political behavior by producing a psychological reaction in the recipient that is also known as terror. Terrorism is sometimes known as "politics by violence" and anarchist followers of Michael Bakunin called it ‘the propaganda by the deed’." [Page 127]

PAUST (1974)
"Terrorism is thus viewed as the purposive use of violence or the threat of violence by the precipitator(s) against an instrumental target in order to communicate to a primary target a threat of future violence so as to coerce the primary target into behavior or attitudes through intense fear or anxiety in connection with a demanded power (political) outcome." [Page 128]


UNITED KINGDOM (1974)
"For purposes of the legislation, terrorism is "the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear." [Page 128]

WILKINSON (1974)
"Our main concern is with political terror: that is to say with the use of coercive intimidation by revolutionary movements, regimes or individuals. (…) We have thus identified some of the key characteristics common to all forms of political terror: indiscriminateness, unpredictability, arbitrariness, ruthless destructiveness and the implicitly amoral and antinomian nature of a terrorist’s challenge. (…) Political terrorism, properly speaking, is a sustained policy involving the waging of organized terror either on the part of the state, a movement or faction, or by a small group of individuals. Systematic terrorism invariably entails some organizational structure, however, rudimentary and some kind of theory or ideology of terror." [Page 128]


BITE (1975)
"International terrorism may be defined as politically and socially motivated violence conducted outside the territories of parties to a conflict or directed against the citizens or properties of a third party. It is effective because of the fear it generates and thrives on publicity. Forms of terrorism include aircraft hijackings, kidnappings, seizure of hostages for ransom, assassinations and bombings. The victims of these attacks are usually civilians." [Page 128]

SOBEL (1975)
"The word terrorism is employed to specify acts of violence for political coercion. But there seems to be no definition that will satisfactorily cover all uses of the term. (…) In general, the word terrorism is used to define almost all illegal acts of violence committed for political purposes by clandestine groups.
The lawyer William A. Hannay, writing in the April 1974 issue of International Lawyer about United Nations debate on terrorism, asserted that ‘recent contemporary usage tends to curb its [the term’s] meaning to either random or extortionate violence, aimed ultimately at the target state of a guerilla, resistance or liberation movement but which strikes at unarmed civilians, diplomats or non-combatants’." [Page 130]

FEARY (1976)
"What precisely is "international terrorism"? It has three characteristics. First, as with other forms of terrorism, it embodies an act which is essentially criminal. It takes the form of assassination or murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, maiming or an assortment of other acts which are commonly regarded by all nations as criminal.
Second, international terrorism is politically motivated. An extremis political group, convinced of the rightness of its cause, resorts to violent means to advance that cause – means incorporating one of the acts I have just cited. Often the violence is directed against innocents, persons having no personal connection with the grievance motivating the terrorist act.
And third, international terrorism transcends national boundaries, through the choice of a foreign victim or target, commission of the terrorist act in a foreign country, or effort to influence the polici of a foreign government. The international terrorist strikes abroad, or at a diplomat or other foreigner at home, because he believes he can thereby exert the greatest possible pressure on his own or another government or on world opinion.



The international terrorist may or may not wish to kill his victim or victims. In abduction or hostage-barricade cases he usually does not wish to kill – though he often will find occasion to do so at the outset to enhance the credibility of his threats. In other types of attacks innocent deaths are his specific, calculated, pressure-shock objective. Through brutality and fear he seeks to impress his existen and his cause on the minds of those who can, through action or terror induced inaction, help him to achieve that cause." [Page 130]

MILBANK (1976)
"For the purpose of this study, international and transnational terrorism are defined as follows:
Common Characteristics: The threat or use of violence for political purposes when (1) such action is intended to influence the attitudes and behavior of a target group wider than its immediate victims, and (2) its ramifications transcend national boundaries (as a result, for example, of the nationality or foreign ties of its perpetrators, its locale, the identity of its institutional or human victims, its declared objectives, or the mechanics of its resolution).
International Terrorism
: Such action when carried out by individuals or groups controlled by a sovereign state.
Transnational Terrorism: Such action when carried out by basically autonomous non-state actors, whether or not they enjoy some degree of support from sympathetic states". [Page 131]


U.S. TASK FORCE
(1976)

"In fact, terrorism is a technique, a way of engaging in certain types of criminal activity, so as to attain particular ends. For the perpetrator of terroristic crimes, terror – or the sensation of massive, overwhelming fear induced in victims – transcends in importance the criminal activity itself, which is merely the vehicle or instrumentality. Terror is a natural phenomenon; terrorism is the conscious exploitation of it. Terrorism is coercive, designed to manipulate the will of its victims and its larger audience. The great degree of fear is generated by the crime’s very nature, by the manner of its perpetration, or by its senselessness, wantonness, or callous indifference to human life. This terrible fear is the source of the terrorist’s power and communicates his challenge to society.(…)
Thus, terrorism, although it has its individual victims, is really an onslaught upon society itself. Any definition of terrorism for the purpose of constructing effective responses to it must bear these considerations in mind.

It is not useful, therefore, merely to enumerate a series of violent, criminal acts or threats that would constitute terroristic behavior; such a definition misses, altogether, the terrorist’s true objective. Any law intended to strike at terrorism must address the purpose as well as the instrumentality. Because they have failed to dos o, international attempts at definition have substantially failed: Viewed in terms of motivation and ends, ‘what is terrorism to some is heroism to others’. [Per M. Cherif Bassiouni, cited in International Terrorism and Political Crimes.] Although it is presently an effective bar to any concerted response to international or transnational terrorism, this lack of agreement about terms and criminal policy ought not to frustrate those responsible for this society’s responses to acts of terrorism. For the purposes of the present report, no such universality of consensus is needed in order to arrive at working definitions. Terrorism is a tactic or technique by means of which a violent act or the threat thereof is used for the prime purpose of creating overwhelming fear for coercive purposes. (…)
Political terrorism is characterized by: (1) its violent, criminal nature; (2) its impersonal frame of reference; and (3) the primacy of its ulterior objective, which is the dissemination of fear throughout the community for political ends or purposes. Political terrorism may be defined, therefore, as violent, criminal behavior designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or a substantial segment of it, for political purpose. Excluded from this definition are acts or threats of a purely personal character and those which are psychopathological and have no intended sociopolitical significance." [ Page 132]

WATSON (1976)
"Political terrorism can be defined as a strategy, a method by which an organized group or party tries to get attention for its aims, or force concessions toward its goals, through the systematic use of deliberate violence. Typical terrorists are individuals trained and disciplined to carry out the violence decided upon by their organizations. And, if caught, true terrorists can be expected to speak and act during their trials not primarily to win personal freedom, but to try to spread their organization’s political ideas. n) (…) n: Not a new definition. It was based on a more detailed one in the encyclopedia of the Social Sciences published in 1934." [Page 133]

WILKINSON (1976)
"Political terrorism may be briefly defined as a special form of clandestine, undeclared and unconventional warfare waged without any humanitarian restraints or rules. (…) It is a common but elementary mistake to equate terrorism with guerilla warfare in general. Political terrorism proper through the use of bombing, assassinations, massacres, kidnaps and hijacks can and does occur without benefit of guerilla war. This has been so throughout history. Historically rural war was largely waged without resort to terrorist tactics, although today urban and rural guerilla movements in Africa and Latin America do employ terrorism. (…) Terrorism is employed as a weapon of psychological warfare to help create a climate of panic, or collapse, to destroy public confidence in government and security agencies, and to coerce communities and movement activists into obeying the terrorist leadership." [Page 134]

CLUTTERBUCK (1977)
"… terrorism – the attack on an individual to frighten and coerce: large number of others – is as old as civilization itself. It is the recourse of a minority or even of a single dissident frustrated by the inability to make society shift in the desired direction by what that society regards as ‘legitimate’ means. It is primarily an attack on the rule of law, aimed either to destroy it or (as in more recent times) to change it radically to conform to the terrorist’s idea of society. (…) Terrorism is not precisely the same as violence, to coerce has enormously expanded their ability to do so." [Page 135]

HOROWITZ (1977)
"The definition of terrorism employed here is the selective use of fear, subjugation, and intimidation to disrupt the normal operations of a society." [Page 135]

HOROWITZ (1977)
"The definition of terrorism I employ is this: the selective use of fear, subjugation, and intimidation to disrupt the normal operations of a society. The power to inflict such injury is a bargaining power which in its very nature bypasses due process of law. It seeks an outcome by means other than democratic or consensus formula. The act of terror – whoever performs it – in some sense violates civil liberties. All the cries about redressing injustices cannot disguise this fact." [Page 135]

JENKINS (1977)
"Terrorism can be described as the use of actual or threatened violence to gain attention and to create fear and alarm, which in turn will cause people to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist tactics are typically small and weak, the violence they practice must be deliberately shocking. (…) The fundamental issue is fear. Perhaps the biggest danger posed by terrorists lies not in the physical damage they do, but in the atmosphere of alarm they create, which corrodes democracy and breeds repression." [Page 136]



SMITH (1977)
"Terrorism involves both the use and the threat of violence. The threat of the terrorist derives not form his words but from his deeds, from a resort to violence that conveys a threat of further violence. This initial violence must therefore be symbolic. The victim must represent a whole class of persons who are identified as possible targets. However, while the particular class of persons to be terrorized may be carefully selected, the actual identity of those attacked is arbitrary. It is this lack of discrimination that is the source of terror. (…) Resort to terrorism - and especially reliance on terrorism – in order to promote political objectives is an indication of weakness. Lacking sufficient popular support to challenge a government through constitutional channels or even through full-scale civil war, a dissident group may see in terrorism the only chance of success." [Page 138]

WILKINSON
(1977)
"Political terrorism may be briefly defined as coercive intimidation. It is the systematic use of murder and destruction, and the threat of murder and destruction in order to terrorize individuals, groups, communities or governments into conceding to the terrorist’s political demands.
(…) Terrorism is a special mode or process of violence which has at least three basic elements: the terroristic aims of its perpetrators, their modus operandi in deploying particular forms of violence to achieve those aims, and the psychological effects of terrorist violence upon the victims and the target audience.
Terroristic violence has the following salient characteristics.
(1) It is inherently indiscriminate in its effect. (…) No one can be certain that they will no be the next victim. (…)
(2) Terrorism is essentially arbitrary and unpredictable, both in the minds of its victims and audience and in its effects upon individuals and society. (…)
(3) Terrorism implicitly denies recognition of all rules and convention of war. It refuses to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and recognizes no humanitarian constraints or obligations to prisoners or to the wounded. (…) No one is innocent… (…)
(4) The terrorists’ rejection of all moral constraints is also reflected in particularly hideous and barbarous cruelties and weapons. (…)
(5) Politically motivated terrorism is generally justified by its perpetrators on one or more of the following grounds; (I) any means are justified to realize an allegedly transcendental end (in Weber’s terms ‘value-rational’ grounds); (II) closely linked to (I) is the claim that extreme violence is an intrinsically beneficial, regenerative, cathartic and ennobling deed regardless of other consequences; (III) terrorism do be shown to have ‘worked’ in the past, and is held to be either the ‘sole remaining; or ‘best available’ method of achieving success (in Weber’s terms ‘instrumental-rational’ grounds); (IV) the morality of the just vengeance or ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth’; and (V) the theory of the lesser evil: greater evils will befall us or our nation if we do not adopt terror against our enemies." [Page 139]

HAMILTON (1978)
"For the purposes of this study, the following definition will be used: Terrorism consists of (1) planned acts of violence, employed for (2) explicitly political purposes, ultimately directed against (3) an established state or organizational power, and involving (4) a relatively small number of conspirators. Additional characteristics include a typically sporadic pattern of activity and, frequently, and emphasis on civilian rather than purely military targets. The definition is intended to distinguish terrorism from apolitical criminal violence, mass turmoil such as demonstrations, riots, or strikes, and from larger political violence phenomena involving large-scale or continuous fighting or widespread popular revolts. It would also be desirable to make a clear distinction between terrorism and small-scale guerilla war, but here the line (drawn between two types of small scale insurgent conspiracies) becomes less clear.
A theoretical distinction based on dissimilar tactics on rural vs. urban bases will encounter a number of exceptions when put into practice. It seems better, for present purposes, to emphasize the similarities rather than force a problematic separation.
The definition above excludes conservative, pro-government violence as well, whether in the form of covertly authorized vigilantism or of undisguised police power. With this exclusion, the definition in effect corresponds to most general Western use of the word." [Page 141]

JENKINS (1978)
"At some point in this expanding use of the term, terrorism can mean just what those who use the term (not the terrorist) want it to mean – almost any violent act by an opponent.
The difficulty of defining terrorism has led to the cliché that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The phrase implies that there can be no objective definition of terrorism, that there is no universal standards of conduct in peace or war. That is not true. (…) The rules of war grant civilian noncombatants at least theoretical immunity from deliberate attack. They prohibit taking civilian hostages and actions against those held captive. The rules of war recognize neutral territory. Terrorists recognize no neutral territory, no noncombatants, no bystanders. (…) One man’s terrorist is everyone’s terrorist. Terrorism, in the Rand chronology, is defined by the nature of the act, not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of their cause. All terrorist acts are crimes – murder, kidnappings, arson. 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 violence is directed mainly against civilian targets. The motives are political. The actions generally are carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. The perpetrators are usually members of an organized group, and unlike other criminals, they often claim credit for the act. And finally the act is intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage.
The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerated the strength pf the terrorists and the importance of their cause, to provoke extreme reactions, to discourage dissent, or to enforce compliance." [Page 142]

MICKOLUS (1978)
"The use or threat of use, of anxiety-inducing extranormal violence for political purposes by an individual or group, whether acting for or in opposition to established governmental authority, when such action is intended to influence the attitudes and behavior of a target group wider than the immediate victims and when, through the nationality or foreign ties of its perpetrators, its location, the nature of its institutional or human victims, or the mechanics of its resolution, its ramifications transcend national boundaries." [Page 143]

SCHWIND (1978)
"Following former attempts to reach a definition, terrorism could perhaps be described more precisely also as
- a (primarily) politically motivated behavior
- of a non-state group without electoral prospects in a democratic context which aims
- by means of violent acts against persons and/or property
- to coerce people (especially the political leadership of democratic state) in order to obtain its will thereby." [Page 144]

JENKINS (1979)
"The term ‘terrorism’ has no precise or universally accepted definition. It has become a fad word used promiscuously and often applied to a variety of acts of violence which are not, strictly speaking, terrorist in nature. Terrorism is often described as mindless violence, senseless violence, or as irrational violence, but it is none of these. (…) … there is a theory of terrorism, a logic behind terrorism. Terrorism can be described as the use or the threat of violence escalated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm which in turn will cause people to exaggerate the strength of the terrorists and the importance of their cause. Terrorism is this violence for effect. Not for the physical effect on the target. Indeed, the target or the victim of a terrorist may be irrelevant to the terrorists’ cause. Terrorism is aimed at the people watching. Terrorism is theater." [Page 146]

U.S. CONGRESS, HOUSE (1979)
"No person charged with an act of terrorism shall be ordered released pending trial as provided in subsection a if the judicial officer determines that such a release would pose a danger to any other person or to the community.
For purposes of this subsection, an ‘act of terrorism’ means any act which is violent or dangerous to human life and violates a Federal criminal statute related to assassination, murder, sabotage, or kidnapping, and which is used as a means or technique –

a) to demonstrate approval or disapproval of governmental policies or practices or the lack thereof;
b) to express a view on public issues;
c) to bring to the public’s attention any issue of policy;
d) to overthrow all forms of law; or
(e) to advocate the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer of officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or any other organized government (including law enforcement officers) because of his or their official function." [Page 147]


HEYMAN (1980)
"Terrorism may be defined as the use or threat of extraordinary political violence to induce fear, anxiety, or alarm in a target audience wider than the immediate symbolic victims. Terrorism is primarily violence for political effect, as opposed to military impact. Transnational terrorism is terrorism hat transcends national boundaries through the location or nationality of the victims, the targets, or the perpetrators. (…)
Transnational terrorism was born of the marriage between the urban guerilla and the student activists. The emigrant guerilla fed on the latent violence of the student movements, exploited the student’s causes and contacts, and learned new tactics." [Page 149]