Is State Terrorism A Good Category?

The ability to prosecute states for politically motivated violence outside the scope of war, or for violence against civilians, would be enhanced if states could be legally considered as terrorist actors.

It would also make it easier to compare the relative harm inflicted by states and non-state actors. We could, for example, more easily compare Israeli and Hezbollah actions if both were considered equally illegitimate terrorist groups. This may be an especially useful way to assess military action in an era defined by unconventional warfare, when states themselves use guerrilla tactics to defeat their adversaries. One anti-war writer arguing that http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=3592] state terrorism should be recognized[/link] made the case based on his comparison of relative damage done by Iraqi insurgents and American marines in Fallujah in 2004. There, the marines "admitted killing 600 people, a figure far greater than the total number of civilians killed by the 'insurgents' during the past year [2003]."

Finally, a perpetrator-"blind" definition of terrorism forces us to weigh the legitimacy of violence based on the situation, rather than on the status of its perpetrator. Perhaps there are cases where non-state actors have the moral upper hand. We often agree that they do after the fact. The 1773 Boston Tea Party, arguably a terrorist act, may also have been a legitimate and necessary one to establish American colonists' right to representation to go along with their taxation.

By the same token, when states use systematic, random violence to terrorize their own citizens or others, they should be held responsible for their actions on moral and ethical grounds, rather than on their status as states.

We may not need a concept of state terrorism, in either our vocabulary or legal toolset, in order to identify and prosecute states' use of terrorist tactics.

There are already accepted routes for prosecuting illegitimate state military action. These include prosecution for war crimes and for the "unlawful use of force" as it's defined in the UN Charter and by the UN Security Council. Thus, if it believed that the United States has exceeded its legitimate authority in Iraq, there are already for dealing with it in the international legal arena. Moreover, these existing provisions can be applied without resorting to the use of the subjective, inflammatory term, terrorism.

Additionally, considering terrorism as by-definition a non-state action helps preserve the international system of sovereign states. When they function correctly, states provide clear and rational social and political order, protection for their citizens, and routes for redressing injustice done in the domestic or international sphere. We shouldn't destabilize their authority by putting them on par with sub-state actors, or constrain their obligation to use force to protect citizens from internal or external threats.

Terrorism is too inflammatory a term to use loosely. It is all too often used irresponsibly as a public relations move by terrorist groups and others seeking sympathy for their own causes.

The best way to ensure that "terrorism" has a real, enforceable meaning is to use it as narrowly as possible. Thus, terrorism should be restricted to describing non-state actions. At the same time, we should acknowledge that states can and do use their power unlawfully. States should demonstrate their legitimacy at home and abroad by abiding by the rules of established international bodies with the jurisdiction to prosecute illegitimate state violence. These include the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, as well as the which can try individuals accused of war crimes and other crimes that terrorize civilians. As of 2006, the United States was not a member of the ICC.