SCMOD2: Comprehensive Terrorism Definition Course

Most of our understanding of international terrorism is derived from the enactment of new laws, which took place after the 9/11 attacks, to address the growing threat of international terrorism. Beginning with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1368, 1373, and 1566, which called on all member states to stop terrorism, criminalize terrorism in domestic laws, “prevent and suppress financing of terrorist acts” in their territories, and “prosecute or extradite anyone supporting terrorist acts or participating in the planning of such schemes.”  Since these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, they impose legal obligations on all member states. But the resolutions outline and delineate obligations in respect to terrorism without defining it as such.
Therefore, it may be argued that the UNSC has allowed states to be flexible in their approach to define terrorism as they deem fit. But then how do you hold states responsible for terrorist offences? There are two ways of looking at it:
 
a) Either hold States responsible under the existing international legal framework – treaties and conventions,
b) Agree on a universal definition, which unambiguously defines terrorism.
 
But for that, there has to be a general consensus on some of the defining elements of the definition. Over time it is observed that “diversity of approach on key elements” is the main reason why there has not been a steady progress towards agreeing on a universal, legally binding definition of terrorism.
 
http://www.globalctinstitutelms.org