One of the issues with combating terrorism is the absence of a definition that could be considered universal. Schmid (2004) proposes the following definition:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought. (p. 382)
This definition has several issues in that the definition of victims is left ambiguous and vague. It seems to cover both military and civilian targets, as those can be both targets of opportunity as well as representative or symbolic targets. Therefore, acts of fighting against foreign oppression would, by this definition, be considered terrorism, contributing to the age-old debate between one person’s terrorists and another person’s freedom-fighters. Di Filippo (2020) defines terrorism as follows:
…criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” (p. 48)
This definition, though short, does not answer the question of when political violence may be correct or even necessary, for the greater purposes of liberation or opposing tyranny. Based on the similarities between both definitions, it could be argued that the main problem is the inclusion of military combatants into the definition. Soldiers and police officers are the extensions of will of their respective governments and have a monopoly on violence, thus are well-equipped to defend themselves. Therefore, attacks against them can be justified under the scope of freedom-fighting. The definition I propose is as follows: “Terrorism is a criminal act aimed exclusively against civilians with the intent to impose a state of fear, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
References
Di Filippo, M. (2020). Research handbook on international law and terrorism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schmid, A. (2004). Terrorism-the definitional problem. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36(2), 375-419. Web.