TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW <!--[if gte mso 9]> TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW By Ross Masud, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan Violence or threat of use of violence to create panic and intimidate a people or a Government and thus make them do or abstain from doing something has been used by individuals, groups and states since antiquity. Such conduct has generally been understood as terrorism. Chengiz Khan used to terrorize his adversaries to weaken their will to resist his on-slaught. The Bolsheviks employed terrorism against the Empire of Tsars when seizing power in Russia and so on. 2. It is, however, difficult to define terrorism in a manner that is acceptable universally. The criteria employed to brand some activity as terrorism has historically been subjective in nature and based on political considerations. Terrorism takes different forms but is generally equated with political subversion and may be motivated by political, ideological or criminal purposes. The governments of different states have also employed terrorism at times to subdue groups and peoples. 3. The German occupation forces during Second World War regarded French resistance as terrorism and the French public opinion regarded the Algerian war of independence as terrorism. In-fact, the terrorists of yesterday have been recognized legitimate leaders of today. For instance, former Israeli Prime Minister Begin was once considered a terrorist and there was a reward money for information leading to his apprehension. Similarly, Yaser Arafat, the President of PLO was considered terrorist before he was recognized as a legitimate leader of his people. As a matter of fact, violence was used by a number of colonized peoples against colonial powers to overthrow the colonial yoke, after Second World War, in various parts of Asia and Africa. This was, however, considered terrorism by the colonial powers. Recently, Milosevie, who is being tried for genocide and crimes against humanity and who pursued patently inhuman policies like ethnic cleansing, has argued that he was fighting against terrorism. 4. It would be interesting to note here that during 19th century the trend to exclude political offences from the list of crimes for which individuals might be extradited gained strength. Most modern extradition treaties also exclude such offences from their purview because liberal and democratic governments developed strong antipathy towards surrendering persons who were agitating for political rights against despotic and oppressive governments. Some countries like Japan do not, however, grant asylum to alleged political offenders and the Japanese Government would send political detectors or seekers of political asylum to third countries of their choice. 5. There is, however, no generally recognize rule of international law prohibiting extradition of persons who are accused of political offences. A political offence may be in itself a common crime but acquires political character because of the circumstances and motivations for which it was committed. Some of the well-known cases in which ordinary crimes had been characterized as a political offences would in the modern days be categorized as terrorist offences. 6. For instance, in the classic British case of In Re Castioni [1], the arrest of Castioni, a Swiss citizen, was challenged. He had participated in an uprising in the Canton of Ticino that seized the arsenal of the town of Bellinzona, disarmed the special police, caught and bound several persons connected with the Cantonal administration and forced them to march in front of the armed crowd to the Municipal Palace. The access to the building was obstructed by government officials including one Mr. Rossi who was shot by Castioni. Rossi died and Castioni fled to Great Britain. 7. The Swiss Government requested for arrest and extradition of Castioni on the charge of murder. The legal representative of Castioni, however, urged that he was guilty of a political offence. The Court agreed and extradition of Castioni to Switzerland was, therefore, denied. The Court reasoned that Rossi was shot in plain view as part of an attack conducted in the uprising against the Cantonal Government. That uprising was part of a struggle between two groups seeking control of the Government and as Castioni had not known Rossi and hence had no personal feeling against him it was held that he shot Rossi in the promotion of a political uprising and thus the offence was political in nature. In many countries of the world this would, however, be categorized as a terrorist offence today. 8. It is thus clear that many acts of violence or threat of use of violence to further political ends would be considered as political offences by governments and people who feel sympathetic to the political struggle during which offences were comrnitted, while others would regard them as pure terrorism. Thus when USA sought to deal with what it perceived as Libya's sponsoring of terrorism by military means and resorted to air strike against Libya, even some of the Western countries, except for UK, criticized the US measures and feared that this would lead to a further cycle of violence. 9. The phenomenon has, however, been attracting increasing attention and concern of the international community for the last three or four decades. The international community has actually circumvented the question of defining terrorism and has made significant headway in combating it in specific areas. About a dozen major International Conventions/Protocols, apart from the regional legal instruments, have been adopted to provide legal 'framework to check the menace of terrorism in specific forms and in specific fields. 10. The first three of these Conventions that dealt with terrorism in the context of Civil Aviation were: (1) Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963),[2] (2) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft of 1970[3], and (3) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971[4]. The offences which threatened the lives of innocent people travelling by air was considered to be so clear cut a form of terrorism that the international community did not feel necessary to go into motives or purposes or causes for which these acts were committed. 11. In the meantime the UN General Assembly appointed an Ad Hoc Committee in 1972 to study the question of International terrorism and to recommend practical measures of cooperation for the speedy elimination of, the menace. The salient features of the General Assembly Resolution [5] adopted at that time were as follows: (a) Unequivocal condemnation of all acts of international terrorism which endanger or take innocent human lives or jeopardize fundamental freedoms. (b) Underlining the need of all States devoting immediate attention to find just and peaceful solutions to the underlying causes which give rise to such acts of violence. (c) Condemnation of the continuation of repressive and terrorist acts by colonial, racist and alien regimes in denying peoples their legitimate right to self-determination and independence and other human rights and fundamental freedoms. . (d) Taking of appropriate measures at the national level with a view to the speedy and final elimination of the problems of international terrorism and urging the states to become parties to international conventions which relate to various aspects of the problem. (e) Recognition of the importance of international cooperation in devising measures to effectively prevent terrorist acts and studying their underlying causes in order to find just and peaceful solution. 12. Similarly, in 1985 the UN General Assembly adopted by a consensus the Resolution No. 40/61 on measures to prevent international terrorism which, inter alia, unequivocally condemned all activities, methods and practices of terrorism by whomever committed and urged all states to contribute towards progressive elimination of causes underlying terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien occupation that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger peace and security. 13. In any case, without developing a definition of terrorism which is universally acceptable the international community continued to adopt international legal instruments to combat various forms of terrorism. The following International Conventions/Protocols of universal nature were thus adopted subsequent to the three Conventions relating to terrorism in the context of Civil Aviation mentioned above: (i) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, 1973 [6]. (ii) International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1979 [7]. (iii) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 1979 [8]. (iv) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1988 [9]. (v) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 [10]. (vi) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988 [11]. (vii) Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection 1991 [12]. (viii) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997 [13]. (xiv) International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999 [14]. 14. In fact, an Ad-Hoc Committee of the UN was established in 1996 that is currently negotiating a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism in which the question of definition is also being addressed to. 15. If we look at the relevant provisions of all twelve of these - Conventions/Protocols, we note that different formulations have been adopted in respect of the offences to be covered by each of these Conventions and Protocols. 16. The Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963 provides in Article 1 of the Convention that it shall apply to all offences against penal law; or acts, not constituting offences otherwise, committed on board that may or do jeopardize safety of aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board an aircraft registered in a contracting state, while the aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas or any other area outside the territory of a state. The scope of this provision is thus confined to offences and acts committed on board an aircraft and will cover all penal offences and acts that jeopardize the safety of an aircraft, persons or property therein or affect order and discipline on board. Thus even acts which do not constitute offences on ground would be covered by the Convention. 17. There is no definition of terrorism as such in the Convention. Article 2 of the Convention, however, provides that no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted so as to authorizing or requiring any action in respect of offences against penal laws that are of political nature or are based on racial or religious discrimination. 18. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970, however, deals with only a specific offence described in Article 1 of the Convention. According to this Article any person who on board an aircraft in flight, unlawfully by force or threat thereof or by any other form of intimidation, seizes or exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act commits an offence in terms of the Convention. An accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act also commits an offence in terms of this Article. 19. The Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971, again covers a broad range of offences and acts against the safety of Civil Aviation. Article 1 of the Convention provides that any person commits an offence in terms of the Convention, if he unlawfully and intentionally performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft; or destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or, places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever, a devise or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight, or to cause damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or, destroys or damages air navigation facilities or interferes with their operation, if any such -act is likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight; or, communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. Any person who attempts to commit such an offence or is an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence also commits an offence in terms of the Convention. 20. It is thus clear that it is the attribute of an offence or an act, being against the safety of Civil Aviation that is considered sufficient to categorize the same as a terrorist offence and no definition of terrorism as such is attempted in this Convention either. 21. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents of 1973 provides in Article 2 that intentional commission of any of the following shall be made a crime by each state party: (a) The murder, kidnapping or other attack on the person or liberty of an international protected persons; (b) A violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transport of an internationally protected person likely to endanger his person or liberty; (c) A threat to commit any such attack; (d) An attempt to commit any such attack; and (e) An act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack. 22. It is thus clear this Convention deals with certain ordinary crimes which are considered terrorist only because the victim of the crimes are internationally protected persons including diplomatic agents. 23. According to International Convention against Taking of Hostages of 1979, Article 1, any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hostage) in order to compel a third party, whether a state, an International Inter-Governmental Organization, a natural or juridical person or a group of persons, 'to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking hostages in terms of the Convention. A person who attempt to commit such an offence or participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit such an offence would also commit an offence for the purposes of the Convention. 24. The description of the offences falling within the scope of the Convention thus also fails to address the question of defining terrorism. 25. Article 12 of the Convention, however, provides that hostage taking in the course of armed conflicts as defined in Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocols thereto of 1977, in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, would not be covered under the Convention against the Taking of Hostages of 1979. 26. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material of 1979 in Article 7 provides that the following acts or offences shall be made punishable by each state party under its law: (i) An act without lawful authority which constitutes the receipt, possession, use, transfer, alteration, disposal or dispersal of nuclear material and which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to property; (ii) A theft or robbery of nuclear material; (iii) An embezzlement or fraudulent, obtaining of nuclear material; (iv) An act constituting a demand for nuclear material by threat or use of force or any other form of intimidation; (v) A threat to use nuclear material to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial property damage: or to commit an offence described in (ii) above in order to compel a natural or legal person, international organization or state to do or to refrain from doing any act; (vi) An attempt to commit any offence mentioned in (i), (ii) or (iii) above; and (vii) An act which constitutes participation in any offence described at (i) to (vi). 27. It is thus apparent that besides what would generally be covered in the concept of terrorism in paras. (d) and (e) of the Article, a wide range of acts like receipt, possession, use, transfer, disposal etc., of nuclear material without lawful authority which do not otherwise fall in the general concept of terrorism have been criminalized under the Convention. 28. 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation of 1971 only adds to the criminalization provisions of the 1971 Convention. Under this Protocol, the following new paragraph 1 bis has been added to Article 1 of the Montreal Convention of 1971: "1 bis. Any person commits an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally, using any device, substance or weapon: (a) performs an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation which causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death; or (b) destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport; if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport." This Protocol thus provides for criminalization of acts that endanger or are likely to endanger safety of airports serving in International Civil Aviation. 29. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988 provides in Para. 1 of Article 3 that any person commits an offence if he/she unlawfully and intentionally: (a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or (b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or (c) destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or (d) places or causes to be placed on. a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or (e) destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or (f) Communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or (g) Injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offences set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f). 30. According to Para. 2 of the Article any person also commits an offence in terms of the Convention if that person: (a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or (b) abets the commission of any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or (c) threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question. 31. This Convention thus deals with a special category of offences relating to the safety of ships or maritime navigation and also fails to address the question of definition of terrorism. 32. The Protocol for the Suppression of unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf of 1988 adds a specific category of offences to the offences covered under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. 33. Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Protocol provides that any person commits an offence, if that person unlawfully and intentionally: (a) seizes of exercises control over a fixed platform by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or (b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a fixed platform if that act is likely to endanger its safety; or (c) destroys a fixed platform or causes damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety; or (d) places or causes to be placed on a fixed platform, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that fixed platform or likely to endanger its safety; or (e) injures or kills any person in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offences set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). 34. The Article also provides that any person commits an offence if that person: (a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or (b) abets the commission of any such offences perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or (c) threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), it' that threat is likely to endanger the safety of the fixed platform. 35. The Protocol thus covers offences relating to the safety of fixed platform only without attempting to define terrorism. Endangering the safety of fixed platform located on Continental Shelf is the key feature of acts criminalized under the Protocol. 36. The Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection of 1991 does not describe any terrorist offences as such. It only provides that the state parties shall take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture in their territories of unmarked explosive and prohibit and prevent the movement into or out of their territories of such unmarked explosives. The state parties to the Convention also undertake the obligation to exercise strict and effective control over the possession and transfer of possession of unmarked explosives manufactured in or brought into their territories prior to entry into force of the Convention so as to prevent their diversion or use for purposes inconsistent with the Convention. The state parties also undertake the obligation that all stocks of such explosive not held by their authorities performing military or police functions are destroyed or consumed in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. 37. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing of 1997 deals with terrorist attack by means of explosives or other lethal devices. In Article 2 it provides that any person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, 'places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, State or Government facility, at public transportation system or infrastructure facilities. And his intention was to cause death, serious bodily injury or extensive destruction of such place, facility or system where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss. Attempt to commit such an offence or complicity in its commission is also an offence under the convention. The term 'Explosive or other lethal device' has been defined as follows: (a) An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or (b) A weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage through the release, dissemination or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins or similar substances or radiation or radioactive material. 38. Any person thus commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or Government. facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility when he does so with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss. 39. The essential feature of the offences falling within the scope of the Convention is the delivering, placing, discharging or detonating an explosive or lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, State or Government facility, a public transportation system or infrastructure facility. Here again no comprehensive definition of terrorism is attempted. 40. Lastly, the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism of 1999 criminalises, financing of terrorism and Article 2 of the Convention provides that any person commits an offence in terms of the Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds with the intention that they are to be used in full or in part, in order to carry out: (a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex. The Annex includes the following treaties: 1. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on 16th December, 1970. 2. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23rd September, 1971. 3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14th December, 1973. 4. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17th December, 1979. 5. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3rd March, 1980. 6. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24th February, 1988. 7. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful .Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10th March, 1988. 8. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10th March, 1988. 9. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15th December, 1997. (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or any international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. 41. Any person who attempts to commit such an. offence, participates as an accomplice in commission of such an offence, organizes or directs others to commit such an offence or contributes to the commission of such an offence shall be considered to have committed an offence in terms of the Convention. Here again the question of definition of terrorism has been circumvented. 42. Apart from the universal legal instrument on terrorism mentioned above there are a number of regional legal instruments dealing with the terrorism. The following Regional Conventions and Treaties may be mentioned in this regard. (a) OAS Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Significance, 1971. (b) European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 1977. (c) SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, 1987. (d) The Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 1998. (e) Treaty on Cooperation among the States Members of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Combating Terrorism, 1999. (f) Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism, 1999. (g) OAU Conventions on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, 1999. 43. Lately, the Ad-Hoc Committee against Terrorism established vide UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17th December, 1996 has been elaborating a Draft Convention for Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism and a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. The Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, in fact, has been at the forefront of the Ad-Hoc Committee's work recently and many of the provisions of the Draft Convention have been finalized but inspite of hectic negotiations, the Scope provision of the draft Convention could not be finalized due to differences of perception amongst the Delegates of different Member States on the question of freedom struggle against alien or foreign occupation or domination and its distinction from Terrorism. Although the question of definition of terrorism, relationship of the draft Comprehensive Convention with other Conventions relating to terrorism, its Preamble etc., are yet to be finalized but once the issue of freedom struggle is settled, these issues would not pose any major difficulty in the conclusion of the Convention. In this context, the OIC Group of Countries alongwith some other Third World Countries had proposed addition of the following new para. in Article 2 of the draft Convention: "Peoples struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of International Law shall not be considered a terrorist crime"[15] 44. The rationale of the proposal is that without such a provision in the Convention legitimate struggles for the realization of right of self-determination may be confused with terrorism as has been done so often in the past. In fact, many earlier legal instruments on terrorism like International Convention against Taking of Hostages of 1979, and the Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, the Arab Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, 1998, the OIC Convention on Combating International Terrorism of 1999. OAU Convention on Prevention and Combating of Terrorism of 1999 all make such distinction between freedom struggles against foreign or alien domination or occupation and Terrorism. 45. As a matter of fact, the right of self-determination of people has been recognized as a peremptory norm of International Law or jus cogen and according to Article 53 of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaty, 1969 any Agreement or Treaty concluded in violation of a peremptory norm of general International Law or jus cogen is void. 46. Although no Delegation challenged the right of self-determination of peoples during the deliberation of the Ad-Hoc Committee, a large number of delegations were reluctant to accept the OIC proposal and considered that the concerns of OIC proposal should be taken care of in Article 18 of the Draft Convention which excluded action by armed forces etc., from the purview of the Convention. No satisfactory solution has, however, been found so far to take care of the concerns of the OIC proposal in the framework of Article 18 of the draft Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism. 47. Apart from development of legal instruments in this field the UN has taken other effective measures to check the menace of -international terrorism in the wake of the tragic September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The UN General Assembly by a consensus of 189 member states called for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism and the Security Council vide its Resolution No. 1373[16] of 28th September, 2001, while re-affirming its Resolution 1269 of 19th October 1999[17] and 1368 of 12th September, 2001[18], took a number of decisions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. It decided to make it an obligation of all states to criminalize willful provision or collection of funds, by their nationals or persons residing in their territories, with the intention that the funds should be used to carry out terrorist acts. 48. It was also decided by the Security Council vide that Resolution that all States should take necessary measures and steps to prevent commission of terrorist acts including provision of early warning to other states by exchanging information and deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts. Moreover, all states are required to prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups through effective border controls and controls of issuance of identity papers, travel documents etc. The Resolution further called upon all states to ensure that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators or terrorist acts. 49. In order to monitor implementation of the Resolution, the Security Council has also established a Committee and directed the Committee to delineate its tasks and submit its work programme to the Security Council. All states have been called upon to report to the Committee not later than 90 days from the date of adoption of Resolution and thereafter according to the time table to be proposed by the said Committee, on the step they have taken to implement the Resolution. A large number of states have already submitted reports to the Committee designated as the Counter-Terrorism Committee, accordingly. 50. In the wake of September 11 tragedy, international community has again started recognizing the importance of addressing the causes of terrorism and a programme is being developed for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as it is felt that without economic development, education, gainful employment opportunities etc., in the society, the root cause of terrorism would remain. The emphasis, however, seems to be on economic and social aspects and the political causes of terrorism seem to be neglected in this approach. 51. There are writers who have frankly analyzed the political environment which produce terrorism. For instance Edward W. Said in his article "Slow death: punishment by detail", has pointed out that the mass media in the West has been approaching Palestinians suicide bombing in a manner to distort reality and obscure much worse official Israeli, and perhaps the uniquely Sharonian, "evil that has been visited so deliberately and so methodically on the moon". He further states that "the targeted" assassinations of almost 100 Palestinians (to say nothing of many thousands of "suspects" rounded-up and still imprisoned by Israeli soldiers)" but "nobody asks whether all these people killed were in fact terrorists, or proved to be terrorists, or as was the case with most of them about to become terrorists. They are all assumed to be dangers by acts of simple, unchallenged affirmation." One can have sympathies for the jews for having undergone terrible suffering during the holocaust but one cannot brush aside these observations. 52. These views clearly show that there is still a lot of subjectivity in identifying the causes of terrorism. International community appears to have reached a cross roads. Two currents of thoughts have emerged in the context of development of international legal instruments to combat terrorism. The UN General Assembly had been emphasizing the importance of dealing with causes of international terrorism and has especially underlined the need to eliminate situations of colonial domination and alien occupation which were considered to be conducive to the growth of this menace. In recent years, however, emphasis had been shifted to suppression of terrorism by force rather than eliminating its causes. With the tragic events of September 11, the international community has again started focusing on tackling of the causes of terrorism or changing environment that produces terrorism but only from economic angle while ignoring the political causes of growth of terrorism. 53. In the present circumstances, therefore, there is need to develop a wholesome approach in order to adequately deal with the problem of terrorism. On the one hand the international community has increasingly considered that terrorism in certain specific forms is so abominable that the question of causes or motives etc., need not be addressed to and the same should be dealt with by a heavy hand. On the other hand, the concept of political offences in international law and the recognition of struggle of peoples against colonial domination and alien occupation for the realization of the right to self-determination as legitimate and lawful. A wholesome approach would entail developing a compromise between the two trends. 54. To consider any act intended to cause deaths or serious bodily injury or damage to a Government facility/transportation system or organizing or instigating others to do so as terrorism, if the objective of the person committing the act was to compel a Government to do or abstain from doing anything, without making any distinction, on the basis causes or motives, would be contradictory to a major trend of international law and the UN system which culminated in the recognition of the right of self-determination of peoples as peremptory norm of international law and legitimacy of peoples struggle against foreign occupation or alien domination. 55. The international community would, therefore, have to evolve a synthesis in which a clear distinction is drawn between such struggles of peoples and terrorism and on the one hand while recognizing the need to bar certain forms of violence as a means of achieving their ends. To the extent of these struggles are in accordance with the international law and do not employ tactics like hijacking of planes and bombing and targeted killing of innocent civilians, they ought to be treated as lawful. REFERENCES: [1] [891] 1 Q.B.149. [2] 704 UNTS No.10106 [3] TIAS 7192: 860 UNTS No.12325 [4] TIAS 7570: 974 UNTS No.14118 [5] Un General Assembly Resolution 3034 (XXVII), dated 18-12-1972 [6] [13 ILM 41 (1974); 1035 UNTS No.15410 [7] TIAS 11081 : 1316 UNTS No.2193 [8] TIAS 11080 : 1456 UNTS No.24631 [9] I.L.M. 27.627 May 88. [10] I.L.M. 27.668 May 88 IMO Doc. SUA/CONF/15/Rev. 1 [11] IMO Doc. SUA/Conf/16/Rev.2. [12] 301 L.M.72, 1991 UN.Doc.5/22393 [13] U.N. Doc A/RES/52/164, Annex [14] U.N. Doc A/RES/54/109, Annex [15] Document A/C.6/55/WG, 1/CRP, 30, dated 3rd October, 2000. [16] U.N. Document S/RES/1373 (2001), dated 28th September, 2001. [17] U.N. Document S/RES/1269 (1999), dated 14th October, 1999. [18] U.N. Document S/RES/1368 (2001), dated 12th September, 2001.