This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]On: 06 October 2014, At: 12:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Strategic AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsan20

Defining terrorismDr. Kshitij Prabha aa Associate Fellow at IDSAPublished online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Dr. Kshitij Prabha (2000) Defining terrorism, Strategic Analysis, 24:1, 125-135, DOI:10.1080/09700160008455199

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09700160008455199

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Defining TerrorismDr. Kshitij Prabha

Terrorism is a global phenomenon which is easy to recognise butdifficult to define. Scholars all over the world describe it according totheir socio-economic and political conditions. Those affected by socialand economic problems conceptualise terrorism as conflict in societybetween the haves and the have nots, whereas those experiencing use ofterror tactics to gain political mileage consider it as a politicalphenomenon. Apparently the word 'terrorism' is interpreted to suitdifferent interests.

There are innumerable definitions of terrorism and every definitionthough it appears correct in its own perspective, lacks some importantaspects of terrorism. In other words these definitions do not representall the components of terrorism. However, if these definitions are analysedin totality, an acceptable definition could be evolved. Multipleinterpretations not merely complicate definition of terrorism, but alsoencourages its perpetrator to escape in the name of economic deprivationand freedom fighting. As a matter of fact, terrorism continues to pervadethe political system because there is no acceptable definition; and henceno punitive action against the perpetrator is possible either by thegovernment or by the international organisations.

Scholars all over the world are entangled in the labyrinth ofterminology and have expressed different views. Amongst them all, themost widely acceptable definition is the one offered by Yonah Alexander.He defines terrorism as: 'the use of violence against random civiliantargets in order to intimidate or to create generalised pervasive fear forthe purpose of achieving political goals.'1 This definition is precise andis often quoted by scholars, but it lacks an important aspect of terrorismi.e. international linkage. Terrorists cannot inflict terror without the fundsand infrastructure facilities that they receive from internationalconnections.

Somewhat similar is the elaborate definition given by Alex P. Schmid

Dr Kshitij Prabha is an Associate Fellow at IDSA.

Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXIV, No. 1© The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Defining Terrorism 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

who analysed innumerable definitions before arriving at the followingconclusion:

'Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action,employed by clandestine individual groups or state actors, for idiosyncratic,criminal or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the directtargets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human targetsof violence are generally chosen randomly or selectively from a targetpopulation, and serve as message generators. Threat and violence basedcommunication processes between terrorists' victims, and main targets areused to manipulate the main target, turning it into a targeting of terror, atarget of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whetherintimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought.'2 This definitiongoes into detail of the phenomenon of terrorism, but remains more f ocussedon targets and objectives than its basic nature.

. Similarly, Brian Jenkins writes that the threat of violence, individualacts of violence or a campaign of violence designed primarily to instillfear is terrorism.3 This definition of terrorism is close to the concept ofterrorism, but ignores two significant aspects e.g. training andinternational support. These two aspects are highlighted in the definitionof Christopher Dobson and Martha Crenshaw. The necessity of trainingis expressed by Dobson who writes that 'use of explosive devices usedby the terrorists needs appropriate training',4 the need for internationalassistance is expressed in the definition of Martha Crenshaw. She opinesthat terrorism is a means to accomplish certain political objectives withinternational support.5

There is yet another group of scholars who define terrorism inhistorical perspective, for instance Michael Walzer believes that "randomterror for political achievement emerged as strategy of revolutionarystruggle after the World War H."6

Likewise some scholars define terrorism in the light of violence andcoercion by state agencies.Walter Laquer, for instance, defines acts ofviolence and repression as carried out by the government against theirown people as terrorism.7 In the same vein, Neil Livingston says that thestate is the main perpetrator of terrorism today.8 Corroborating the sameidea, scholars like Jay Mallin defines terrorism as a substitute for overtwarfare . To put it in his own words' when diplomats fail soldiers takeover, when soldiers fail terrorists take over.'9 His opinion of terrorismas a substitute for war or as a consequence of failed diplomacy isrelevant. But to state that terrorism is a fall-out of military failure is farfrom the reality. Often we experience inability of police, not the soldiers,in countering terrorism .As a matter of fact when diplomats, politicalleaders and police fail soldiers take over to curb terrorism .

126 Strategic Analysis/April 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

UN Definition of Terrorism

The UN General Assembly Report of the Ad Hoc Committee onInternational Terrorism (28th session/A/9028,1973) was an importantdocument in the history of terrorism. Recalling the 1972 resolution entitled'Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takesinnocent human lives or jeopardises fundamental freedoms, and studyof the underlying causes of those forms of terrorism and acts of violencewhich lie in misery, frustration, grievance and despair, and which causesome peçple to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an attemptto effect radical changes' the Ad Hoc Committee established three sub-committees to examine definition, causes and prevention of terrorism.Seven draft proposals were submitted by different nations to the sub-committee on the definition of terrorism. While the Non-Aligned Group(consisting of Algeria, Congo, Democratic Yemen, Guinea, India, Syria,Tunisia, Tanzania, Yemen,Yugoslavia, Zaire, and Zambia) submittedcollective proposals, France, Greece, Haiti, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela madeseparate presentations on the definition of terrorism. The Non-AlignedGroup defined terrorism as acts of violence committed by a group ofindividuals which endanger human lives and jeopardise fundamentalfreedoms the effects of which are not confined to one state. This shouldnot, however, affect the inalienable right to self-determination undercolonial and racist regimes. The French proposal described internationalterrorism as a heinous act of barbarism committed in foreign territory.Greece distinguished terrorism from freedom fighting and defined it ascriminal acts of violence....with the aim to put pressure on any disputeor for personal satisfaction. Haiti included political aspirations in thedefinition and Iran added violence against freedom movement also asacts of international terrorism. Nigeria and Venezuela too held similarviews. Apparently the house was divided. Therefore no resolution on thedefinition of terrorism could be adopted. The matter remained suspendeduntil 1987 when the Secretary General convened an internationalconference to define terrorism and differentiate it from freedom fighting.This conference was successful in the sense that members agreed toidentify terrorism with crime and accordingly a future plan of action wasproposed. Taking note of the Secretary Generals* report of the conferencethe UN General Assembly condemned all acts of terrorism except thosefighting for the right to self-determination against foreign and racistregimes as ^criminaT (Resolution adopted on the reports of the SixthCommittee,General Assembly, 94th Meeting, Dated December 7, 1987,Report A/42/832) An overwhelmimg majority adopted this resolution.However, remarkably the US and Israel voted against the resolution

Defining Terrorism 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

while Honduras abstained. Thus after fifteen years of deliberations andcounter-deliberations, finally the UN came to the conclusion that all actsof terrorism are criminal.

However, the question arises: is it a correct definition of terrorism?Can we describe a terrorist as a criminal? The answer to these questionslies in self-contradiction. If terrorism is analysed as a concept, thisdefinition is not correct. The link between crime and terrorism could beestablished, but to identify the two as one would be misleading. Criminalsdo not have political purpose unless they are converted to terrorism.Normally their aim is to acquire wealth. They are more concerned aboutthe economy of the state and the individuals rather than the politicalsituation; whereas politics is the main consideration of terrorists.

However, if it has to be analysed from the point of view of prevention,then this definition can serve the purpose. Perhaps it is the simplest wayto cope with terrorism. This could be one of the effective measures toprevent international terrorism without getting into the details of causesand their political affiliation. 'Identify them with their acts of violenceand treat them as criminal' sounds quite good. But is it viable? Ifprevention is the objective for defining terrorism as criminal, then theUN should have immediately adopted a resolution on compulsoryextradition treaty among nations for exchange of criminals (terrorist)operating from different parts of the world. The UN has not taken anymeasure in this direction though this issue has been raised time andagain. Until extradition is made compulsory and criminals are triedaccording to the law of the nation they belong to, this definition is unlikelyto prevent international terrorism. Hence even this definition has norelevance.

Obviously there is a long list of definitions given by different scholarsat different points of time in different situations.Undoubtedly all thesedefinitions lead towards conceptualisation of terrorism and have certaincommon features. However, none of these definitions presents terrorismin its totality. Each scholar has offered his own perspective on terrorism.None of them adopted the terrorists' perspective and put them togetherto evolve a functional definition of terrorism. The present study is anattempt to do the same on the basis of David Easton's system theory.Easton's system theory is adopted not merely because the phenomenonof terrorism has a direct effect on the socio-economic and political systembut also because it (terrorism) emanates from within the same system.(In order to arrive at a functional definition of terrorism a pragmaticapproach to the problem would be more relevant.) A definition devoidof the socio-economic and political issues involved in terrorism holds

128 Strategic Analysis/April 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

good only for academic purpose not for practical implications. In orderto arrive at a functional definition of terrorism a pragmatic approach tothe problem would be more relevant. Therefore in this context, terrorismis broadly defined from two perspectives:

Political Perspective (?) : Group Action (GA), International Linkage (IL)Means Perspective (M) : Violence (V), Training (T)

Definition Model of Terrorism(Based on David Easton's Systems Theory)

Pofltfcsi P*r»p*ctlv« M«an* PcrspvcttM

p GA-

v

Chang* In P«Ncy

OUT

PUT

bnpsct

Defining Terrorism 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

In this model, the definition of terrorism is analysed from the abovementioned two perspectives i.e. terrorism as a political phenomenondescribed as P, and as a means described as M to achieve politicalgoals.In the subsequent phase, the model explains that P demandscoordination and cooperation to form a cohesive political group andthereby needs GÀ to implement the plan and GA in turn leads to IL.

From the political perspective point of view, terrorism is defined asa political rather than a criminal or psychological phenomenon in thelight of the fact that terrorists do not believe in personal gain oraccumulation of wealth. Their sole objective is to acquire political powerbe it in the form of autonomy or creation of an independent state.

In'the Means perspective, terrorism is defined as a means in pursuitof realisation of à political mission. While explaining the means, themodel emphasises the necessity of violence in terrorism.Violenceemployed by terrorists is of specific type i.e. tactical by nature, Violenceconveying a message to government is terrorism. Killing and arsondevoid of publicity do not fit into the definition of terrorism. Furthermore,the tools of violence terrorists use demands professional training. Alayman cannot operate sophisticated weapons and missiles used byterrorists. This aspect also needs attention while defining terrorism. Thefollowing paragraphs present a detailed analysis of both the perspectiveson definition of terrorism.

Terrorism as a Political Phenomenon

Violence and intimidation could be effective means to achieve multipleobjectives.lt could be used for personal benefits, redress of social andeconomic grievances or to gain political mileage. However, not all actsof violence are terrorism. Only those incidents of violence could bedefined as terrorism which have political implications. Individual acts ofviolence are more of a psychological nature than political. Socio-economicor psychological aspects are causal factors for the growth of terrorism,and not the basic nature of the phenomenon. Both the nature andpurpose of terrorism is political. Its political identity could be understoodbetter by analysing various dimensions of the problem such as objective,methodology and the organisational structure. The ultimate goal ofterrorists is to acquire political power. Social and economic problems arenot primary to them, though these issues are vital for the rise of terrorism.These are not priorities because they believe that once the political powercomes under their domain, social arid economic reforms would followby themselves. Thus, their sole aim is to capturepower.10 Their desperationinspires them to target political leaders and institutions to malign thecredibility of a government.

130 Strategic Analysis/April 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Another important political dimension to terrorism is itsorganisational structure. Terrorist groups are organised more as a politicalparty than a criminal gang. Initially they emerge as a political unit aspiringfor political recognition. However when they fail to make a dent inactive politics through political means, their agenda shifts from politicsto tactical violence . All India Sikh Students Federation (AISF) in Punjaband All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in Jammu and Kashmircould be cited as examples .of the same situation. The AISF came intoexistence as an organised group of Sikh students in Punjab. But with the

' passage of time, it emerged as one of the active terrorist groups inPunjab. Similar is the case of APHC in Kashmir. It came into being as apolitical party to contest against the National Conference in J and K. But failed to participate in the political process partly because it isfunded by Pakistan and partly because leaders involved in APHC arenot sure as to which path to follow—violence or politics of negotiation.They are a bit confused because Pakistan will not like a peaceful solutionto the Kashmir problem and India will not accept any organisationplaying the Pakistani tune in the internal politics of the country. Anumber of them including the main leaders are arrested for fomentingtrouble in J and K. Though the APHC is not a banned organisation, itsactivities are under observation. Be it AISF or APHC, when these groupsfail to gain recognition from the government and the people, they adopta violent course of action to destabilise an established government"more so in a democratic society. In the name of civil rights guaranteedto citizens in democracy, terrorists indulge in violence and create massunrest and fear.Wilkinson rightly defines such acts of violence as politicalterrorism.12

Subsequently, the definition model highlights GA as an essentialelement in terrorism.The kind of violence terrorists inflict cannot have animpact without collective manoeuvering. They operate in a networkstructure and are inter-dependent on one another to execute the plan ofsubversion. The need for collaboration in operations is so high in terroristorganisations that at times they hire services of other groups fromacross their national boundary.13 For instance, Pak-sponsored terrorismin India involves different terrorist groups operating in Punjab, J and K,Assam in India as well as mercenaries from Afghanistan, Sudan andSaudi Arabia. The theory of individualism and isolation has no relevancein terrorism. 'Bigger the network, more the mileage' is the key to terroristoperations. Individual acts of terror without political purpose is notterrorism, but manifestation of crime or mental sickness. Such individualscould best be defined as psychopaths not as terrorists. Mohamed AliAgca of Turkey, the man who shot at Pope John Paul II in Rome had no

Defining Terrorism 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

political motive. The investigating agency in Italy tried to establish hislink with the Turkey based terrorist group, 'Grey Wolf/14 however, couldnot get any evidence of his political connection. Throughout the judicialtrial, he denied having any connection with the 'Grey Wolf" or the rightwing Nationalist Action Party (NAP) of Turkey. He claimed to berepresenting his own idea of terrorism. He was sentenced to death. ThePope himself had direct interaction with him after conviction andrequested the court to reduce his punishment from death to lifeimprisonment. He realised that it was a case of mental sickness, ratherthan a deliberate act of terrorism.

The political perspective on terrorism would remain incompletewithout a focus on international linkage. Interaction among terroristgroups is an essential feature of terrorism. Terrorist operations demandheavy expenditure on weapons and training facilities, which are unlikelyto come from sources within the national boundary. The risk of beingexposed to police and intelligence agencies is very high if the operationremains confined to domestic frontiers. The possibility of being caughtby the law enforcement agencies keeps them crossing the border off andon. Therefore, most of the terrorist groups not merely have foreignsource of funding, but maintain cross border training camps andsanctuaries.

The history of terrorism is replete with illustrations of transnationalterrorism. The Red Faction Army (RAF) of (then) West Germany popularlyknown as Baader Meinhoff, and JKLF could pose as threats to civilisedsociety because of their international linkage. Baader and Meinhof, thetwo important leaders of RAF had a rendezvous in Jordan to trainPalestinian militants15 and used them in their own pursuit to destabilisethe government of West Germany. In the same way, the Kashmirimilitants received military and financial assistance from Mujahideensfrom Pakistan and Afghanistan. Similarly the UK based IRA hadoperation units in the US as well.16 The former British Prime Minister,Margaret Thatcher had authentic information that the IRA was receivingfunds from Libyan mercenaries. This issue was one of the importantfactors that inspired Thatcher to approve the US attack on Libya in 1986.17

The case of multiple RDX explosions in Mumbai in 1993 also refersto international contact and collusion. Tiger Memon , the smuggler

.turned terrorist, has established political contacts across the border andis trying to convert his ill-gotten money into politico-religious outlets.Son of a police inspector, he began his criminal career in Mumbai.Thereafter he moved to Dubai from where he established links with thePakistani intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The net result of

132 Strategic Analysis/April 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

this collaboration was the serial bombing in Mumbai. After this incident,India pursued the UAE government for an extradition treaty betweenthe two countries. This compelled Tiger Memon, the main accused, toshift his base from Dubai to Karachi where he lives under protection andconstant vigilance of the Pakistan government.

Maintaining the same tradition, highjackers of the Indian AirlinesIC 814 successfully utilised their political contacts in Afghanistan to getthe hardcore Pakistani terrorists, Azhar Masood and two others released.The good offices of Taliban government was engaged to bargain withIndia at the Qandhar international airport in Afghanistan. Throughoutthe eight day drama beginning December 24-31, 1999, the highjackersbargained with India through the Taliban government of Afghanistanwith whom India does not have diplomatic relations. It was a difficultsituation for Delhi to get out of this crisis without involving the Talibangovernment.

These incidents are enough indication that political collaboration inthe international network of terrorist groups is vital to the success ofterrorism. Without such contacts and cooperation terrorism would remaina bare philosophy and would have no impact on society or thegovernment. Hence, the apolitical definition of terrorism has no relevanceto the global problem of terrorism. Terrorism is the study of conflict inpolitics within and beyond the national frontiers and it needs to be definedpolitically.

Terrorism as Means to an End

The second essential aspect in the definition of terrorism is to analyseit as a means to an end rather than an end by itself. History offers evidencethat terrorists invariably aim to achieve certain socio-economic or politicalgoals. Terror tactics have always been used as means to an end.18 Meanstheory is so relevant in the politics of violence that even an individualperpetrator addresses his grievances through terror tactics. MarthaCrenshaw substantiates this idea by defining terrorism as a means toa political end.19 Furthermore, it is the type of means employed thatdefines a group as terrorist or otherwise.

It is worth mentioning that political parties too resort to violence attimes. A clear distinction between violence by a political party and aterrorist group is necessary while defining terrorism. Often students ofterrorism confuse both as being one and the same. The differencesbetween the two could be easily explored; for instance, violence by anestablished political party is normally haphazard and of low intensity.It happens only in the wake of protest rallies and demonstrations. These

Defining Terrorism 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

are more in the form of anomie than planned violence like that ofterrorism. Violence by political parties does not create mass unrest fora long period of time. It can create chaos, confusion and halt thegovernment machinery for a day or two but cannot pose a serious threatto society .

Terrorism, on the other hand, adopts a well-planned tactic to indulgein violence, arson and subversion. Every phase of violence is chalked outby terrorists according to socio-economic and political conditions of thetarget area. An environment of unrest and fear is created throughconspiracy and propaganda before terrorists resort to violence. Such issuesare totally missing from violence by political parties.

As a corollary to this and as explained in the model, it is alsoimportant to note that violence, being a precondition to terrorism, needsproper planning for execution of subversive plans, which largely dependson training imparted to the terrorists. Without training in the use ofweapons, tactical application of violence is not possible. This aspect isalso significant in defining terrorism. Terrorists are trained in weaponry,communication systems and post-violence follow up actions in trainingcamps abroad. It is an important aspect of terrorism, because the era welive in is not that of. daggers and knives, but of machine guns, bazookas,missiles, transister bombs, letter bombs, cyanide and RDX. These arehighly sophisticated weapons and ammunition, which require propertraining to operate.20 Lack of skill might prove fatal and self destructive.

These descriptions apparently lead to the conclusion that terrorismis not just a kind of violence expressed on the spur of the moment, butan organised instrument to achieve political objectives. It has its ownidentity, comprising various issues as mentioned above..Therefore, onthe basis of all the definitions given by scholars all over the world and

-the real issues involved in terrorism , terrorism could be defined here asan act or threat of an act of tactical violence by a group of trainedindividuals, having international linkage, to achieve political objective.This group could be sponsored by non -state or state agencies. Thisdefinition precisely covers all the aspects of terrorism.

NOTES1. Yonah Alexander, International Terrorism: National, Regional and Global

Perspectives (New York: Praeger Publisher, 1976), Journal of InternationalAffairs, p. XIV.

2. Alex Schmid and Jongman, J. Albert, Political Terrorism, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books, 1988) p. 28.

3. Brian Jenkins, "International Terrorism: Trends and Potentialities'', Journal ofInternational Affairs, vol. 32, no. 1, Spring/Summer, 1978, pp. 115-123.

134 Strategic Analysis/April 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

4. Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne, The Weapons of Terror, (London:MacMillan Press, 1979), p. 67.

5. Martha Crenshaw, "Theories of Terrorism", The Journal of Strategic Studies,vol. 10, no. 4, (December 1987), p. 13.

6. Michael Walzer, Political Principles (New York: Basic Books Inc. 1980), pp.201-203.

7. Walter Lacquer, The Age of Terror, (London: Wiedenfield and Nilcolson, 1987),Passim.

8. Neil Livingston, The War Against Terrorism (Massachusetts: D.C. Health andCo. 1982), p. 11.

9. Jay Mallin, "Terrorism as a Military Weapon", Air University Review, vol.XXVIII, no. 2 (January/February 1977), pp. 54-64.

10. Lester A Sobel, Political Terrorism, vol. 2, (New York: Facts on file, 1978), pp.2-3.

11. Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism and Liberal State (London: MacMillan Press Ltd.,1977), Passim.

12. Paul Walkins, Political Terrorism (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974).13. Dobson and Payne, n. 4, p. 63.14. Sadhan Mukherjee, Terrorism and Antonov Case (Delhi: Navyug Press, 1985),

pp. 13-18.15. Donna M. Sehlagheck, International Terrorism: An Introduction to Concepts

and Actors (Massachusetts: D.C. Healths Co., 1988), p. 61.16. Raymond R. Corrado, "Ethnic and Student Terrorism in Western Europe", in

Michael Stohl's The Politics of Terrorism, (New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.,1979), p. 198.

17. David Cariton and Carlo Shaerif, International Terrorism and World Security(London: Croom Helm, 1974), p. 38.

18. Martha Crenshaw, "Theories of Terrorism: Instrumental OrganisationalApproach, Journal of Strategic Studies, Op.cit., p. 13.

19. Dobson and Payne, n. 4, p. 67.20. Jenny Teichman, "How to define Terrorism", Philosophy: The Journal of the

Royal Institute of Philosophy, vol. 64, no. 250, (October, 1989), p. 511.

Defining Terrorism 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 12:

27 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014