Terrorism, Human Rights and Ethics: A Modelling Approach

M.A. Hersh m.hersh@elec.gla.ac.uk    Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland. Tel: + 44 141 330 4906. Fax: + 44 141 330 6004.

I INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS ‘TERRORISM’?

This paper aims to apply ethical analysis and modelling techniques to improve understanding of the circumstances which encourage or promote terrorism and the ethical issues associated with terrorism and counter-terrorism. It is organised as follows: Section 1.1 and Section 2 provide the framework for the ethical analysis in Sections 3-5 through discussion of the various definitions of terrorism and the context for terrorism, as well as the meaning of individual and collective responsibility. Section 3 presents a number of different approaches to the ethical analysis of terrorism and Section 4 considers some of the ethical issues arising in counter-terrorism. Section 5 continues this discussion with consideration of the extent of the terrorist threat and the nature of the response to terrorism and conclusions are presented in Section 6.

1.1 Definitions of Terrorism

The theoretical analysis requires a definition of terrorism, but ‘terrorism’ is a political concept and consequently its definition is not uncontroversial. Etymologically terrorism is derived from the Latin verb terrere, to frighten and the term was probably first used in its French form terrorisme to describe the use of the arrest or execution of opponents by the Jacobin club in post-revolutionary France to terrorise the general public into compliance (Anon, undated).

Common elements of a number of definitions include (Anon, undated; Corlett, 2003; Meggle, 2005a) the use of violence, intimidation or the threat of violence against one person or group in order to achieve political, ideological, social or religious goals by putting pressure on or intimidating another group of people or another individual to carry out actions they would otherwise be opposed to. Therefore the people to be influenced are generally different from those who experience the violence, though they may be members of the same group. Thus, for instance, violence could be directed against civilians to put pressure on a government or against a particular government minister to put pressure on other government ministers. Some definitions include acts carried out by agents on behalf of other people and acts which may aim to provoke extreme counter measures to win public support for the terrorists (Corlett, 2003). There is disagreement as to whether terrorism only includes violence (or the threat of it) directed against civilians and/or innocent people with ‘innocent’ defined with regard to the activity or issue of concern to the ‘terrorists’, whether the violence may be directed against property and whether or not terrorism includes acts of violence by governments in power or acts of violence in war. It has also been suggested that the aim of terrorism is to publicise and draw attention to issues in the sense of a violent demonstration, rather than to achieve change (Baier, 1991) and that terrorism may include other aims, such as punishment, calling attention to problems or expression of frustration, in addition to coercion (Held, 1991). However, it should be noted that, analogously to non-violent demonstrations, terrorist acts are more likely to achieve change as part of a concerted campaign, rather than as isolated acts.

War crimes, government repression or disappearance of civilians and genocide are generally excluded from definitions of terrorism Even when governments are excluded as terrorists, state-sponsored terrorism in which governments support terrorism in another state is recognised. ‘Organised crime’ is generally excluded from definitions of terrorism, even when it involves violence and intimidation. However there may be arguments for labelling acts of intimidation aimed at extorting ‘protection’ money and giving a ‘crime lord’ control of a particular area as terrorist.

It has been suggested that state terrorism is morally worse than terrorism by non-state actors. In particular, the scale of death, injury and general destruction in state terrorism is many times greater in state than non-state terrorism. State terrorism is frequently accompanied by deception of the public, a hypocritical condemnation of terrorism and the commission of acts prohibited by human rights declarations to which most governments, but not non-state bodies, are signatories (Primoratz, 2005). The term state terror is sometimes used to describe the actions of official organisations such as the Gestapo, the KGB and the Stasi against dissidents or ethnic minorities. One of the main differences between terrorism by states and other actors is that states generally use terrorism to oppose changes to the status quo, whereas non-state actors use terrorism to try to change the status quo (Narveson, 1991). Government definitions of terrorism tend to be slanted to include their enemies, but not their irregular allies or friends (Lutz et al, 2004; Kapitan, 2005). In addition it has been suggested that use of the term terrorist is solely about propaganda and prevents examination of the causes and consequences of the political situation which has given rise to terrorist acts (Messelken, 2005). Thus definitions of terrorism have a political and ideological nature, with care being taken to differentiate acts by governments from those carried out by other (terrorist) individuals and organisations.

Terrorism is a type of political violence, which is not a recent phenomenon, but its importance may have increased (Corlett, 2003). The term violence has a number of definitions. For instance Coady (1986) presents three definitions, ‘wide’ and ‘legitimate’ definitions generally relating to left and right wing political philosophies and including social injustices and the ‘illegal employment of methods of physical coercion for person or group ends’ respectively. It should be noted, that these two approaches respectively question and support the status quo. Coady’s ‘restricted’ definition relates mainly to the infliction of physical harm (Coady, 1986), but excludes verbal violence and mental cruelty. Coady also makes a useful distinction between harm to oneself or others caused directly by actions and harm resulting from omissions, which he labels positive and negative violence respectively. This will be touched on later in the discussion in Section 2.1 of collective responsibility resulting from omissions. In the subsequent discussion the expression ‘terrorist’ will be used as short-hand for people who have committed terrorist acts.

2 CONTEXT FOR TERRORISM

However it may appear to outsiders, the behaviour of ‘terrorists’ is generally sell-consistent and rational. It is therefore useful to consider the factors which increase the likelihood of the commission of terrorist acts. The following list of factors has been compiled from a combination of analysis of the literature and my own analysis. It is not necessarily exhaustive and not all the factors are necessarily required as a precondition for terrorist acts, but the likelihood of the commission of terrorist acts will generally increase with the presence of an increasing number of these factors. Although it is not being claimed that there is a total symmetry between terrorism and the use of violence in anti-terrorism, many of the following factors also characterize this case.

• An issue, problem or cause, which may be political, ideological, religious or other.

• Lack of success of other methods or a very slow or insufficient response.

• A focus on ends rather than means or the belief that ends justify means.

• A culture which accepts or glorifies violence

• Marginalisation, discrimination and social exclusion, including from decision making structures and access to decision makers.

• The taking away of rights, dehumanization or even demonisation of certain groups, which then justifies any type of abuse or alternatively the instrumentalisation of certain groups, to make their needs and rights subordinate to those of other social groups. This view frequently characterises society’s attitude to terrorists and at least some terrorists’ attitude to their victims.

• Creation of a...