law essay on terrorism

• Personal Profile
• See all online law products
• Subscriber Services
• Guided Tour

• Case reports
• International court decisions
• Domestic court decisions
• European court cases
• Arbitral cases
• Commentary and analysis
• Book content
• Encyclopedia entries
• International instruments and materials
• Supporting instruments
• Institutional rules
• Resolutions
• Declarations
• Air law and law of outer space
• Diplomacy and consular relations
• European Union
• History of international law
• Human rights
• Individuals and non-state actors
• International co-operation
• International criminal law
• International economic law
• International environmental law
• International humanitarian law
• International law and international relations
• International organizations
• International procedural law
• International responsibility
• Law of the sea
• Law of treaties
• Relationship between international and domestic law
• Settlement of disputes
• Sources, foundations and principles of international law
• Statehood, jurisdiction of states, organs of states
• Theory of international law
• Use of force, war, peace and neutrality
• Geographic Regions
• Organizations/Institutions
• American Organizations/Institutions
• African Organizations/Institutions
• Asian Organizations/Institutions
• European Organizations/Institutions
• International Organizations/Institutions
• Middle Eastern Organizations/Institutions
• Pacific Rim Organizations/Institutions

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
• Collapse All
• Select Bibliography
• Select Documents

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Go to full text on:

• United Nations

Treaty Establishing the European Community (as amended by other Treaties) (European Union) [2006] OJ 321 E/37 (Date signed: 25th March 1957)

• External Link

Christian Walter

Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law under the direction of Professor Anne Peters (2021–) and Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum (2004–2020). 

• [195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

• News releases
• Report an incident of misconduct
• Work with us
• ICRC Supply Chain

Terrorism, counter-terrorism and international humanitarian law

Statement of Christine Beerli, ICRC Vice-President at the 17th edition Bruges Colloquium , 20 -21 october 2016

Terrorism is a scourge to which the international community has been striving to respond for decades. The obvious challenges it poses are not only long-lasting, but also immediate. Wherever we turn these days, across the world, we are confronted with increased risks of terrorist acts. Terrorism is a global phenomenon sometimes closely link to armed conflict; and one which the international community is increasingly facing.

Terrorism negates the fundamental principles of humanity as well as the essential principles and objectives of international humanitarian law (IHL). In this regard, the ICRC condemns acts of terrorism, irrespective of their perpetrators, be they committed in or outside an armed conflict, and is deeply distressed by their devastating impact on communities and individuals.

Indeed, every day we see the dramatic consequences of the fight between States and non-State armed groups designated as terrorist, in particular in Africa and in the Levant. Irrespective of the claimed legitimacy of this fight or the causes espoused by or attributed to those involved therein, what we observe in the field is once again the civilian population bearing the brunt of armed violence. Cities are reduced to rubble, civilians are directly attacked, humanitarian and medical personnel, transports and infrastructures are targeted and prevented from fulfilling their functions, the civilian population is deprived of supplies essential for its survival through siege warfare, humanitarian access is denied and, resulting from all of this, hundreds of thousands of people are internally displaced or have fled their country, leaving a home, a job, a plot of land, or even close relatives behind. In the absence of a political solution, compliance with IHL and the fundamental values underpinning this body of law are required more than ever, from all sides, because prohibition of acts of terrorism and other violations of the law are not just binding on non-State armed groups.

BRUGES 2016 PHOTO GALLERY

The rise of non-state armed groups resorting to acts of terrorism is a growing concern domestically but also internationally. This situation has led States and international organizations to react by tightening existing counterterrorism measures and introducing new ones. Of course, the ICRC does not challenge the necessity of States to take legitimate measures to ensure their security. Nonetheless, while taking such measures to eliminate terrorism, the safeguards protecting human life and dignity must be upheld. In the ICRC's view, the international community must be clear and firm on the need for counterterrorism activities to be conducted in full respect of the protection afforded to all individuals by international law, in particular IHL and human rights law. Such respect is in the interest of the international community, as there is today growing recognition that violations of these bodies of international law may in turn exacerbate the very phenomenon that counterterrorism purports to fight.

Neither armed conflict nor terrorism are new forms of violence. Both have existed for a long time and have, for most part, been understood to be separate phenomena, as demonstrated by the different legal frameworks that regulate them. The perception that armed conflict and terrorism differ and that their respective legal rules are distinct has radically changed since September 2001 and the subsequent launching of the so-called "global war on terrorism". Recent years have again seen the rise of non-State armed groups resorting to acts of terrorism and the subsequent engagement of a coalition of States against them. This situation has put the relationship between IHL and the legal framework governing terrorism back into the spotlight and may have even created the perception that there may be a new "global war on terrorism" involving a group or groups of unbounded geographical reach.

The recent actions taken by States against non-State armed groups designated as terrorist and the correlative counterterrorism discourse in both domestic and international fora have significantly contributed to a blurring of the lines between armed conflict and terrorism and their respective legal frameworks. This is further exacerbated by the fact that, often, counterterrorism instruments include situations of armed conflict in their scope of application. The resultant overlaps and contradictions between IHL and the legal instruments specifically designed to address terrorism is problematic. Counterterrorism norms may interfere with IHL's regulation of armed violence, notably by prohibiting conduct that is not unlawful under IHL, creating legal confusion and potentially adversely affecting some of the underlying principles of IHL. In this regard, one should carefully study the consequences of such interference and seek creative ways to ensure the integrity of IHL, thereby maintaining its rationale – which is needed more than ever in current armed conflicts.

The fight against terrorism may take various forms, including armed conflict. Determining when IHL applies to particular counterterrorism activities is not an easy enterprise. Not only because some States may tend to deny the applicability of IHL on the basis that non-State armed groups designated as terrorist organizations cannot be considered party to an armed conflict. How, when and where IHL applies to counterterrorism activities still raises important legal questions.

First of all, it is important to recall that any use of force against non-state armed groups designated as terrorist – or against members and affiliates thereof – is not necessarily synonymous with a situation of armed conflict governed by IHL. When armed force is used, only the facts on the ground are relevant for determining the legal classification of a situation of violence. Some situations may be classified as international armed conflicts, others as non-international armed conflicts, while various acts of violence may fall outside any armed conflict due to lack of requisite nexus. In the ICRC's view, this is also true for the fight against terrorism.

Another crucial question relating to IHL applicability is whether non-state armed groups designated as terrorist fulfil the organization criterion for classifying a situation as a non-international armed conflict. This is all the more difficult in view of the myriad of fluid, multiplying and fragmenting armed groups that frequently take part in the fighting. Often, their structure is difficult to understand. In some cases, some form of leadership structure emerges at some point, claiming to unite different armed groups, often based on pledges of allegiances. This raises the question of what link needs to exist between different armed groups in order to consider formerly distinct entities as one party to an armed conflict. The same question also emerges with regard to different groups that join forces transnationally, such as different armed groups pledging allegiance to the Islamic State group or to Al Qaida.

The spillover of conflicts into neighboring countries, their geographical expanse and their regionalization also appear to have become distinctive features of many contemporary armed conflicts involving non-state armed groups designated as terrorist. The transnational nature of such armed conflict involving a non-state armed group capable of operating in various countries – even non-contiguous ones – directly raises the question of IHL's territorial reach. This is still a much-debated area of the law – in particular when it comes to the applicability of IHL for military operations in the territory of non-belligerent States – that will certainly benefit from your insights.

IHL has been sometimes described – wrongly in the ICRC's view – as a set of rules which hinders the efforts of States to efficiently address their security concerns and fails to provide adequate tools to deal with non-state armed groups designated as terrorist. I am confident that we will be able to dispel some misconceptions in this regard and highlight the fact that, in situations of armed conflict, IHL should not be considered as an obstacle to the fight against terrorism. On the contrary, IHL can be a powerful tool at States' disposal while still providing important protections – complemented by human rights law – for those affected by the armed conflict between States against non-State armed groups designated as terrorist. This added value of IHL is significant in the fields of the use of force and detention.

The phenomenon of the so-called "foreign fighters" – nationals of one country who travel abroad to fight alongside a non-State armed group in the territory of another State – has increased exponentially over the past few years. In order to quell the threats emanating from foreign fighters, States - in particular within the framework of the UN Security Council - have taken a variety of measures, including the use of force, detention (on terrorism charges, among others), and travel bans.

While most of the measures taken to prevent individuals from joining non-State armed groups or to mitigate the threat they may pose upon return are of a law enforcement nature, the applicability of IHL, where appropriate, should not be overlooked. However, so far, little attention has been paid to how IHL deals with the phenomenon of foreign fighters.

The concept of a "foreign fighter" is not a term of art in IHL. The general applicability of IHL to a situation of violence in which such fighters may be engaged does not depend on the nationality of those fighting. It depends only on the facts on the ground and on the fulfilment of certain legal conditions stemming from the relevant norms of IHL, in particular common Articles 2 and 3 of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, in situations of armed conflict, IHL will govern the actions of foreign fighters, as well as any actions against them by parties to that conflict, when such actions have a nexus to the armed conflict concerned.

In this regard, it is important to underline that foreign fighters detained in relation to an armed conflict to which the detaining authorities are party must benefit from the protections afforded by the applicable IHL rules, irrespective of the domestic laws that also govern their detention. Unfortunately, States dealing with the phenomenon of foreign fighters tend to shy away from recognizing the applicability of IHL to their detention. Our discussions will certainly allow us to understand why this is so and to clear up the misapprehension that IHL would not allow States to prosecute foreign fighters – a misapprehension which, in the ICRC's views, has no legal basis under IHL.

For nearly a decade the idea that the risk of radicalization potentially leading to violent actions should be addressed though social prevention programs has significantly progressed. Many States are developing and implementing various domestic plans to address the root causes of this phenomenon. These programs are now usually referred as preventing or countering violent extremism (P/CVE). States' understanding that "terrorism" must be fought through more than simply military or hard security means is in fact not a new avenue. It is mimicking years of counter-insurgency strategies and stabilization concepts implemented in conflict affected countries. Yet such P/CVE model has gained considerable ground amongst countries confronted to so-called home grown terrorism and the re-occurrence of violent actions against their respective population. In this political context, international organizations, the RC/RC Movement and various civil society actors are being asked to partner with states and support this movement through their existing or specially design programs.

The ICRC does not question the merit of these initiatives which may ultimately contribute to limit the risks of violations and abuses. However, while recognizing the general purpose of P/CVE concept as expressed in the recent UN plan of action that is to address the root cause of extreme violence, one should not underestimate its potential adverse effects on the existing legal protection frameworks. There may be also a risk that humanitarian organizations associated with CVE/PVE programs be seen by some States and non-State actors as politically motivated and therefore incapable to carry out a neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian action.

Within the framework of counterterrorism measures, efforts to curb and criminalize all possible direct and indirect support to so-called terrorist organizations have led to increased control and restraint on all activities, including humanitarian activities, that could in any way be seen as providing support to non-State armed groups or individuals designated as terrorists. Consequently, there is a significant risk that such measures, in particular criminal legislation, may further reduce the humanitarian space which the ICRC and other impartial humanitarian organizations need in order to carry out their neutral, independent and impartial activities.

Since 2011, the ICRC has on various occasions shared its concerns that such counter-terrorism measures have the potential to criminalize a range of humanitarian actors and their personnel, and may create obstacles to the funding of humanitarian activities. The unqualified prohibition of acts of "material support," "services" and "assistance to" or "association with" terrorist organizations found in certain criminal laws could, in practice, result in the criminalization of the core activities of impartial humanitarian organizations, and their personnel, that are endeavoring to meet the needs of victims of armed conflicts or situations of violence below the threshold of armed conflict.

In addition, the potential criminalization of humanitarian engagement with non-State armed groups designated as "terrorist organizations" and of humanitarian activities carried out in areas controlled by these groups may be said to reflect a non-acceptance of the notion of neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian action – a notion which the ICRC strives to promote in its operational work in the field.

The ICRC has deployed significant efforts to persuade States to stop legislating against principles they have supported and endorsed through IHL treaties, as well as to ensure that the new legal frameworks being developed as part of counterterrorism strategies do not challenge principled humanitarian action. So far, our work on this crucial issue was not as successful as we had expected, but the ICRC is convinced that stakeholders will understand the necessity to harmonize their policies and legal obligations across the humanitarian and counterterrorism realms.

For more information on the Bruges colloquium, please consult the following website of the College of Europe : http://www.coe-icrc.eu/en

Related articles

75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions: Rediscovering and reviving African humanitarian traditions

Adhering to Humanitarian Norms Paves Way to Peace

Philippines: Fulfilling our humanitarian mission in 2023

Search form

International legal instruments.

Since 1963, the international community has elaborated 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts. Those instruments were developed under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and are open to participation by all Member States.

Here is a summary of the 19 universal legal instruments and additional amendments dealing with terrorism. ( For the full text of the documents click on the title )

Instruments regarding civil aviation

1963 convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft.

• Applies to acts affecting in-flight safety;
• Authorizes the aircraft commander to impose reasonable measures, including restraint, on any person he or she has reason to believe has committed or is about to commit such an act, where necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft; and
• Requires contracting States to take custody of offenders and to return control of the aircraft to the lawful commander.

1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft

• Makes it an offence for any person on board an aircraft in flight to "unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or any other form of intimidation, [to] seize or exercise control of that aircraft" or to attempt to do so;
• Requires parties to the convention to make hijackings punishable by "severe penalties"
• Requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution; and
• Requires parties to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the Convention.

1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation

Makes it an offence for any person unlawfully and intentionally to perform 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; to place an explosive device on an aircraft; to attempt such acts; or to be an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform such acts;.

• Requires parties to the Convention to make offences punishable by "severe penalties"; and
• Requires parties that have custody of offenders to either extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution.

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

• Extends the provisions of the Montreal Convention to encompass terrorist acts at airports serving international civil aviation

2010 Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation

• Criminalizes the act of using civil aircraft as a weapon to cause death, injury or damage;
• Criminalizes the act of using civil aircraft to discharge biological, chemical and nuclear (BCN) weapons or similar substances to cause death, injury or damage, or the act of using such substances to attack civil aircraft;
• Criminalizes the act of unlawful transport of BCN weapons or certain related material;
• A cyber attack on air navigation facilities constitutes an offence;
• A threat to commit an offence may be an offence by itself, if the threat is credible.
• Conspiracy to commit an offence, or its equivalence, is punishable.

2010 Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft

• Supplements the  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft  by expanding its scope to cover different forms of aircraft hijackings, including through modern technological means;
• Incorporates the provisions of Beijing Convention relating to a threat or conspiracy to commit an offence.

2014 Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Acts Committed on Board Aircraft

Instrument regarding the protection of international staff, 1973 convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons.

• Defines an "internationally protected person" as a Head of State, Minister for Foreign Affairs, representative or official of a State or international organization who is entitled to special protection in a foreign State, and his/her family; and
• Requires parties to criminalize and make punishable "by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature" the intentional murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person, a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations, or the means of transport of such person; a threat or attempt to commit such an attack; and an act "constituting participation as an accomplice".

Instrument regarding the taking of hostages

1979 international convention against the taking of hostages.

• Provides that "any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental 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 of hostage within the meaning of this Convention". 

Insturment regarding the nuclear material

1980 convention on the physical protection of nuclear material.

• Criminalizes the unlawful possession, use, transfer or theft of nuclear material and threats to use nuclear material to cause death, serious injury or substantial property damage.

2005 Amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material

• Makes it legally binding for States Parties to protect nuclear facilities and material in peaceful domestic use, storage as well as transport; and
• Provides for expanded cooperation between and among States regarding rapid measures to locate and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, mitigate any radiological consequences or sabotage, and prevent and combat related offences.

Instrument regarding the maritime navigation

1988 convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation.

• Establishes a legal regime applicable to acts against international maritime navigation that is similar to the regimes established for international aviation; and
• Makes it an offence for a person unlawfully and intentionally to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, threat, or intimidation; to perform an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship; to place a destructive device or substance aboard a ship; and other acts against the safety of ships.

2005 Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation

• Criminalizes the use of a ship as a device to further an act of terrorism;
• Criminalizes the transport on board a ship various materials knowing that they are intended to be used to cause, or in a threat to cause, death or serious injury or damage to further an act of terrorism;
• Criminalizes the transporting on board a ship of persons who have committed an act of terrorism; and
• Introduces procedures for governing the boarding of a ship believed to have committed an offence under the Convention.

1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf

• Establishes a legal regime applicable to acts against fixed platforms on the continental shelf that is similar to the regimes established against international aviation.

2005 Protocol to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf

• Adapts the changes to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation to the context of fixed platforms located on the continental shelf.

Instrument regarding explosive materials

1991 convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.

• Designed to control and limit the used of unmarked and undetectable plastic explosives
• Parties are obligated in their respective territories to ensure effective control over "unmarked" plastic explosive, i.e., those that do not contain one of the detection agents described in the Technical Annex to the treaty;
• Each party must, inter alia, take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture of unmarked plastic explosives; prevent the movement of unmarked plastic explosives into or out of its territory; exercise strict and effective control over possession and transfer of unmarked explosives made or imported prior to the entry into force of the Convention; ensure that all stocks of unmarked explosives not held by the military or police are destroyed, consumed, marked, or rendered permanently ineffective within three years; take necessary measures to ensure that unmarked plastic explosives held by the military or police are destroyed, consumed, marked or rendered permanently ineffective within fifteen years; and, ensure the destruction, as soon as possible, of any unmarked explosives manufactured after the date of entry into force of the Convention for that State.

Instrument regarding terrorist bombings

1997 international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.

• Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

Instrument regarding the financing of terrorism

1999 international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

• Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;
• Commits States to hold those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts; and
• Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other States on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy is no longer adequate justification for refusing to cooperate.

Instrument regarding nuclear terrorism

2005 international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.

• Covers a broad range of acts and possible targets, including nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors;
• Covers threats and attempts to commit such crimes or to participate in them, as an accomplice;
• Stipulates that offenders shall be either extradited or prosecuted;
• Encourages States to cooperate in preventing terrorist attacks by sharing information and assisting each other in connection with criminal investigations and extradition proceedings; and
• Deals with both crisis situations (assisting States to solve the situation) and post-crisis situations (rendering nuclear material safe through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

The UN General Assembly adopted by consensus the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy  on 8 September 2006. The strategy is a unique global instrument to enhance national, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism. The General Assembly reviews the Strategy every two years, making it a living document attuned to Member States’ counter-terrorism priorities.

Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism

This  Plan of Action , put forward by the UN Secretary-General in 2016, calls for a comprehensive approach encompassing not only essential security-based counter-terrorism measures but also systematic preventive steps to address the underlying conditions that drive individuals to radicalize and join violent extremist groups. In its resolutions A/RES/70/291 and A/RES/72/284 for the fifth and sixth biennial review of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the General Assembly encouraged Member States to consider implementing relevant recommendations from the Plan of Action, and to develop their own national and regional plans of action.

• Advisory Board
• Guest Authors
• NEW: Podcast
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Climate Change
• Congressional Oversight
• Counterterrorism
• Cybersecurity
• Disinformation
• Human Rights
• Immigration
• Intelligence activities
• International Criminal Law
• Israel-Hamas War
• January 6th Attack on US Capitol
• Law of Armed Conflict
• Local Voices
• Racial Justice
• Social Media Platforms
• United Nations
• Use of Force
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Trump Trials

Featured Articles

• Write for Just Security
• Signups for A.M. and P.M. emails

The Growing Threat of State Domestic Terrorism Laws to the First Amendment

by Nick Robinson

September 5, 2024

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Filed under:

Counterterrorism , Domestic Extremism , Domestic Terrorism , First Amendment , Freedom of Assembly , freedom of expression , freedom of speech , Material Support , political violence , protests , terrorism , United States

While there is no separate federal crime of “domestic terrorism” in the United States, there is a crime of domestic terrorism in many U.S. states. In recent years, the use and content of these state terrorism laws have witnessed a significant shift, raising new threats to First Amendment rights. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), where I work, released a new report on these laws today.

A majority of states – 32 states and Washington DC – have the crime of domestic terrorism. Further, 21 states and DC criminalize assisting or supporting terrorism, and 25 states have a separate crime of terroristic threat. Most of these state domestic terrorism laws were enacted in the wake of 9/11. They traditionally were relatively rarely enforced as crimes of political violence can, and have been, prosecuted by federal or state officials using other criminal law provisions. However, as concerns about terrorism have evolved in the United States, these laws have taken on an increasingly prominent and often politicized role.

Prosecutors in Georgia brought charges last year using its state domestic terrorism law against dozens of activists protesting a proposed law enforcement training facility near Atlanta, dubbed “Cop City.” While this case has progressed further than others, this targeting of protest-related activity is not a new occurrence. In the last few years, authorities in Oklahoma , New York , Louisiana , and Florida have all used domestic terrorism laws in the context of protests or activism. Meanwhile, three states – Texas, North Dakota, and Oregon – adopted domestic terrorism laws for the first time in 2023, signaling new interest in these laws. And in the 2024 legislative session, at least 15 states have considered changes to their domestic terrorism laws, many in response to pro-Palestine protests.

Since political violence is already criminalized under other state and federal laws, state domestic terrorism laws are arguably unnecessary. In addition, these laws create serious, and often underappreciated, civil liberties concerns, particularly in relation to the freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. State domestic terrorism laws are frequently overbroad and trigger severe penalties that have been used in multiple states to target individuals, including nonviolent activists, in activity not typically associated with terrorism. Policymakers in both major political parties though are only slowly waking up to the danger these laws can pose.

State Domestic Terrorism Laws and Protests

The high-profile use of Georgia’s state terrorism law in charges against Cop City activists highlights some of the First Amendment concerns domestic terrorism legislation raises. In an indictment handed down by the Georgia Attorney General’s office in July 2023, 61 people, including a legal observer from the Southern Poverty Law Center, were charged with racketeering for engaging together to prevent the construction of a police training center on public forest land. During a music festival on the forest land in March 2023, at least a hundred people had walked to the construction site, where some knocked over a fence, threw rocks, and burned equipment. For many of the defendants, the indictment stated that they joined the group at the construction site, “thereby aiding and abetting in the offense of arson and domestic terrorism.” In the same indictment, five individuals were charged with domestic terrorism arising out of a separate protest in January 2023 that was sparked by the law enforcement killing of a protester occupying the forest land. The indictment alleged that these five attempted to commit arson against critical infrastructure, including police vehicles, as they were arrested with accelerant.

Under Georgia law, the predicate crime of domestic terrorism is a felony intended to cause serious bodily harm or to disable or destroy “critical infrastructure.” “Critical infrastructure” is defined broadly to include any publicly or privately owned “facilities, systems, functions, or assets” providing services to the public. Georgia’s domestic terrorism law, like almost all other state terrorism statutes, also has an intent requirement , which can be met by committing the predicate offense with the intent to intimidate a civilian population or to alter or coerce government policy. In Georgia, terrorism is a felony punishable by a minimum of five years and up to life imprisonment.

While Georgia’s domestic terrorism law has been challenged for being vague and overbroad, some state domestic terrorism laws are even broader. In Oklahoma , for example, a predicate offense for domestic terrorism includes any act of violence that results in damage to property or the threat of such violence, including even minor property damage. The offense is punishable by up to life in jail. In Tennessee the predicate crime for domestic terrorism can be literally any crime, including a relatively minor offense like obstructing a sidewalk or disorderly conduct . The offense is punishable by 15 to 60 years in jail.

These broad definitions of domestic terrorism have repeatedly been used by law enforcement in protest contexts. In Oklahoma, a prosecutor charged five individuals, including three teenagers, with domestic terrorism in 2020 for alleged property destruction connected with a Black Lives Matter demonstration—a charge that critics claim was used to intimidate protesters. In New York City, police arrested a group of fourteen protesters for domestic terrorism in 2023 for delaying a subway train. The police claimed that in blocking the train they had engaged in first degree tampering , a predicate offense under the state’s domestic terrorism statute .

Lawmakers have also worked to expand domestic terrorism laws in response to protest movements. In 2021, for instance, Arkansas amended its law to include damage to public monuments as a predicate crime for domestic terrorism after Black Lives Matter protests in which demonstrators had toppled or vandalized confederate monuments. In the wake of protests over Israel’s invasion of Gaza that began in late 2023, several states proposed changing their domestic terrorism laws, including lawmakers in New York who introduced a bill in 2024 that would create a new felony domestic terrorism offense for obstructing roads or sidewalks in a manner that deliberately blocks traffic.

Support for Terrorism and Terroristic Threats

Many states have not just a crime of domestic terrorism, but also crimes of terroristic threat or material support for terrorism. Both of these crimes also come into potential conflict with the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly.

Law enforcement in Louisiana, for example, charged two female environmental activists in 2020 under state law with “terrorizing,” after they engaged in a publicity stunt in which they left a bucket of plastic pellets on the porch of the house of a chemical industry lobbyist. The activists claimed the plastic pellets were from a chemical factory that had dumped them into the Gulf of Mexico. This crime of terroristic threat in Louisiana is punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

The broad language of material support provisions also creates the potential for politicization. In late 2023, at the urging of Governor Ron DeSantis, the head of the Florida state university system ordered public universities to disband state campus groups linked to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), claiming that SJP was in violation of Florida’s material support of terrorism law for statements that were supportive of the actions of Hamas (a federally designated foreign terrorist organization). Critics pointed out the state chapters of SJP were autonomous from the national organization and their activism for Palestine was protected under the First Amendment. Civil liberties groups sued to challenge the order, and the Florida government eventually backed away from efforts to disband the state groups. Providing “material support” to a terrorist organization is a felony under Florida law punishable by up to 30 years in jail.

Significantly, Florida, like some other states , criminalizes not just material support to a federally designated foreign terrorist organization, but also material support for any act of domestic terrorism. Since domestic terrorism is defined so broadly in some states to potentially include acts like purposefully delaying a train or even engaging in a sit in , these provisions can potentially capture people who never engaged in violence or even thought they were connected with terrorism.

Moving Forward

While most state domestic terrorism laws were passed in the wake of 9/11, many have been enacted or amended more recently. The motivations of legislators have been tellingly diverse, highlighting a lack of political consensus about the target of these laws.

Last year, for instance, lawmakers in Texas enacted domestic terrorism legislation to fill a claimed legislative gap and after Governor Abbott had designated Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations in 2022. This is part of a larger Republican push to have drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations by the federal government. Meanwhile, lawmakers in West Virginia have repeatedly introduced a bill, including this session, that would criminalize “terrorist violent mass action” in response to fears about antifa and other protest groups.

Those on both sides of the aisle have reasons to be concerned about the increasing turn towards state domestic terrorism laws. After the September 11th attacks, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities bore a disproportionate brunt of surveillance and investigations in the name of fighting terrorism, often based on thin evidence and racial or religious profiling . In recent years, the label of terrorism has been applied by federal officials and politicians against members of a varied range of groups, including Black Lives Matter activists , abortion activists , environmental activists , anti-government proponents , Trump supporters , white supremacists , individuals associated with antifa , and pro-Palestine protesters .

This labeling of a broad set of groups and individuals by officials as potential terrorists is a source of concern as more groups and individuals may become targets of state domestic terrorism laws in a politicized manner. However, the more unrestrained use of this label can also potentially create a larger constituency for reform. In North Dakota, lawmakers enacted a domestic terrorism law in 2023 out of concern that the crime of terrorism was being ”weaponized” against conservative voices. Specifically, the law’s sponsors claimed their bill was in response to a letter that the National School Board Association sent to the FBI asking them to potentially investigate as domestic terrorists conservative parents who had sometimes made threatening statements at school board meetings. The enacted North Dakota law defines domestic terrorism to only include crimes done in cooperation with federally designated international terrorist organizations to try to limit the offense to these transnational contexts and not apply it against purely domestic actors.

This year, the Idaho state senate passed a similar law to North Dakota’s out of fear law enforcement may target groups like Moms for Liberty as domestic terrorists. Meanwhile, a number of proposed amendments that would have strengthened state terrorism laws in the wake of pro-Palestine protests did not pass, in part because of their First Amendment implications.

The broad provisions of state domestic terrorism laws empower law enforcement to use them in a discretionary manner. This has already created a climate of fear amongst activists and protesters in the United States. Moving forward, state lawmakers should prioritize First Amendment and other civil liberties concerns when considering domestic terrorism legislation.

The experiences of states with domestic terrorism laws should serve as a warning to those who have advocated for a separate federal crime of domestic terrorism. So far, such a push has failed to move forward largely because a federal crime of domestic terrorism is arguably unnecessary given that political violence is already a crime and because such proposals often raise serious First Amendment concerns. However, state experiences with domestic terrorism laws also provide additional evidence about how such a federal law could become politicized.

As even more groups are impacted by these state terrorism laws on both the political left and right, there is an opportunity for a broader political consensus to emerge around a more targeted approach to combatting political violence. This vision for combatting political violence should be clear about the dangers these state laws create to our First Amendment protected rights.

IMAGE: Atlanta Police Department officers monitor a pro-Palestinian protest against the war in Gaza at Emory University on April 25, 2024, in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Elijah Nouvelage / AFP) (Photo by ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/AFP via Getty Images)

About the author(s), nick robinson.

Nick Robinson ( @NLR100 ) is a Senior Legal Advisor at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).

Send A Letter To The Editor

Read these related stories next:

Public-safety reform and preventing targeted violence: two sides of the same public-health coin.

by Eric Rosand , Stevan Weine and Alejandro Giménez Santana

Sep 6th, 2024

Book Review: A Misinformation Researcher’s Guide to the ‘Carnival of Mirrors’

by Paul M. Barrett

Sep 3rd, 2024

Durov, Musk, and Zuckerberg: Tech Oligarchs Cry Censorship and What It All Means

by Justin Hendrix

Aug 30th, 2024

‘Good Moral Character?’ Holding Trump to the Same Standards as the Immigrants He Vilifies

by Edgar Chen and Dan Ross

Aug 28th, 2024

The Just Security Podcast: How can the U.S. Address Political Violence and Threats?

by Rachel Kleinfeld , Paras Shah and Clara Apt

Aug 19th, 2024

Revoking the 9/11 Plea Deals: Human Rights Consequences

by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin

Aug 16th, 2024

Collecting Just Security’s Afghanistan Coverage on Third Anniversary of Taliban Takeover

by Maya Nir

Aug 15th, 2024

The Double Black Box: AI Inside the National Security Ecosystem

by Ashley Deeks

Aug 14th, 2024

Just Security’s Climate Archive

by Clara Apt

Aug 12th, 2024

Wake Up Call: UN Security Council’s Report on ISIS and al-Qaeda

by Tom Joscelyn

Aug 5th, 2024

Israel’s ‘War on Terror’ and the Legal and Security Imperative to Comply with International Law

by Alyssa Yamamoto

AI’s Potential to Advance Human Rights? Striking the Right Balance

by Sarah Shirazyan and Miranda Sissons

Aug 2nd, 2024

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Definitions of terrorism

• Types of terrorism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Social Sci LibreTexts - Terrorism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Terrorism
• Cornell Law Scholl - Legal Information Institute - Terrorism
• United States Institute of Peace - Rethinking the "War of Terror"
• FBI - Terrorism
• PBS Frontline - The Evolution Of Islamic Terrorism
• Digital History - Terrorism in Historical Perspective
• terrorism - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• terrorism - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

terrorism , the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine . Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime .

Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare . Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda , aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the calculated use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”

In order to attract and maintain the publicity necessary to generate widespread fear, terrorists must engage in increasingly dramatic, violent, and high-profile attacks. These have included hijackings , hostage takings, kidnappings , mass shootings, car bombings, and, frequently, suicide bombings . Although apparently random, the victims and locations of terrorist attacks often are carefully selected for their shock value. Schools, shopping centres, bus and train stations, and restaurants and nightclubs have been targeted both because they attract large crowds and because they are places with which members of the civilian population are familiar and in which they feel at ease. The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major targets sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are important economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end.

Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines both international and domestic terrorism as involving “violent, criminal acts.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate . A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa , which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II .

Since the 20th century, ideology and political opportunism have led a number of countries to engage in international terrorism, often under the guise of supporting movements of national liberation. (Hence, it became a common saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”) The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence became blurred—particularly as many guerrilla groups often employed terrorist tactics—and issues of jurisdiction and legality were similarly obscured.

These problems have led some social scientists to adopt a definition of terrorism based not on criminality but on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are most often innocent civilians. Even this definition is flexible, however, and on occasion it has been expanded to include various other factors, such as that terrorist acts are clandestine or surreptitious and that terrorist acts are intended to create an overwhelming sense of fear.

In the late 20th century, the term ecoterrorism was used to describe acts of environmental destruction committed in order to further a political goal or as an act of war, such as the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells by the Iraqi army during the Persian Gulf War . The term also was applied to certain environmentally benign though criminal acts, such as the spiking of lumber trees, intended to disrupt or prevent activities allegedly harmful to the environment .

Since the early 21st the term stochastic terrorism has been used to designate the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying, dehumanizing rhetoric by a political leader or other public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit hate crimes or other acts of violence against a targeted person, group, or community . Because stochastic terrorists do not supply their followers with any detailed plan of attack, the particular time and place of the eventual violence are unpredictable.

War on Terror

Responding to domestic terrorism: a crisis of legitimacy, on terrorists and freedom fighters.

• Khaled A. Beydoun

Terrorism Essay for Students and Teacher

500+ words essay on terrorism essay.

Terrorism is an act, which aims to create fear among ordinary people by illegal means. It is a threat to humanity. It includes person or group spreading violence, riots, burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, fighting, bombings, etc. Terrorism is an act of cowardice. Also, terrorism has nothing to do with religion. A terrorist is only a terrorist, not a Hindu or a Muslim.

Types of Terrorism

Terrorism is of two kinds, one is political terrorism which creates panic on a large scale and another one is criminal terrorism which deals in kidnapping to take ransom money. Political terrorism is much more crucial than criminal terrorism because it is done by well-trained persons. It thus becomes difficult for law enforcing agencies to arrest them in time.

Terrorism spread at the national level as well as at international level.  Regional terrorism is the most violent among all. Because the terrorists think that dying as a terrorist is sacred and holy, and thus they are willing to do anything. All these terrorist groups are made with different purposes.

Causes of Terrorism

There are some main causes of terrorism development  or production of large quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, etc. rapid population growth,  Politics, Social, Economic  problems, dissatisfaction of people with the country’s system, lack of education, corruption, racism, economic inequality, linguistic differences, all these are the major  elements of terrorism, and terrorism flourishes after them. People use terrorism as a weapon to prove and justify their point of view.  The riots among Hindus and Muslims are the most famous but there is a difference between caste and terrorism.

The Effects Of Terrorism

Terrorism spreads fear in people, people living in the country feel insecure because of terrorism. Due to terrorist attacks, millions of goods are destroyed, the lives of thousands of innocent people are lost, animals are also killed. Disbelief in humanity raises after seeing a terrorist activity, this gives birth to another terrorist. There exist different types of terrorism in different parts of the country and abroad.

Today, terrorism is not only the problem of India, but in our neighboring country also, and governments across the world are making a lot of effort to deal with it. Attack on world trade center on September 11, 2001, is considered the largest terrorist attack in the world. Osama bin Laden attacked the tallest building in the world’s most powerful country, causing millions of casualties and death of thousands of people.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Terrorist Attacks in India

India has suffered several terrorist attacks which created fear among the public and caused huge destruction. Here are some of the major terrorist attacks that hit India in the last few years: 1991 – Punjab Killings, 1993 – Bombay Bomb Blasts, RSS Bombing in Chennai, 2000 – Church Bombing, Red Fort Terrorist Attack,2001- Indian Parliament Attack, 2002 – Mumbai Bus Bombing, Attack on Akshardham Temple, 2003 – Mumbai Bombing, 2004 – Dhemaji School Bombing in Assam,2005 – Delhi Bombings, Indian Institute of Science Shooting, 2006 – Varanasi Bombings, Mumbai Train Bombings, Malegaon Bombings, 2007 – Samjhauta Express Bombings, Mecca Masjid Bombing, Hyderabad Bombing, Ajmer Dargah Bombing, 2008 – Jaipur Bombings, Bangalore Serial Blasts, Ahmedabad Bombings, Delhi Bombings, Mumbai Attacks, 2010 – Pune Bombing, Varanasi Bombing.

The recent ones include 2011 – Mumbai Bombing, Delhi Bombing, 2012 – Pune Bombing, 2013 – Hyderabad Blasts, Srinagar Attack, Bodh Gaya Bombings, Patna Bombings, 2014 – Chhattisgarh Attack, Jharkhand Blast, Chennai Train Bombing, Assam Violence, Church Street Bomb Blast, Bangalore, 2015 –  Jammu Attack, Gurdaspur Attack, Pathankot Attack, 2016 – Uri Attack, Baramulla Attack, 2017 – Bhopal Ujjain Passenger Train Bombing, Amarnath Yatra Attack, 2018 Sukma Attack, 2019- Pulwama attack.

Agencies fighting Terrorism in India

Many police, intelligence and military organizations in India have formed special agencies to fight terrorism in the country. Major agencies which fight against terrorism in India are Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Terrorism has become a global threat which needs to be controlled from the initial level. Terrorism cannot be controlled by the law enforcing agencies alone. The people in the world will also have to unite in order to face this growing threat of terrorism.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Last updated on August 19, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

Defining terrorism is a tedious and confusing task as there is a lack of consensus at the international level. However several efforts have been made in this regard.

Table of Contents

Defining Terrorism

An agreed, comprehensive definition of terrorism has never been created by the international community. The United Nations’ attempts to define the term during the 1970s and 1980s failed mostly because of disagreements among its members over the use of violence in conflicts over self-determination and national liberation. Due to these differences, a conclusion cannot be reached.

According to the FBI: “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Causes of Terrorism

There are many causes such as:

Political causes

Insurgency and guerrilla warfare, a type of organized conflict, were the contexts in which terrorism was first theorized. A non-state army or organization committing political violence. Because they dislike the current system, they pick terrorism. They oppose the current social structure and wish to change it.

Religious reasons

In the 1990s, experts started to claim that a brand-new sort of terrorism propelled by religious zeal was on the increase. They cited groups like Al Qaeda, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, and Christian identity movements. Religious concepts like martyrdom were viewed as especially hazardous.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

Socio-Economic

According to socio-economic theories, persons who experience different types of deprivation are more likely to turn to terrorism or are more open to being recruited by groups that use terrorist tactics. Lack of political freedom, lack of access to education, and poverty are a few examples.

Types of Terrorism

The following are the various types of terrorism.

Ethno-Nationalist

According to Daniel Byman, ethnic terrorism is the premeditated use of violence by a subnational ethnic group to further its cause. Such violence typically aims at either the establishment of a separate State or elevating one ethnic group above another.

Activities by Tamil nationalist groups in Sri Lanka are an example of Ethno-Nationalist terrorism.

Hoffman claims that those who engage in terrorism who are either wholly or partially driven by religious imperative view violence as a sacramental or heavenly responsibility. Religious terrorism is more destructive because it adopts different justifications and modes of legitimization than other terrorist organizations.

Ideology oriented

Several ideologies have been used to legitimize terrorism. They include:

Left-Wing Extremism

The idea focuses on overthrowing the state through an armed struggle and establishing a communist state.

Right Wing Extremism

Right-wing organizations typically aim to preserve the status quo or go back to a scenario from the past that they believe should have been preserved.

They might compel the government to seize a piece of land or to step in to defend the rights of a minority that is being “oppressed” in a neighbouring nation.

State Sponsored

State-sponsored terrorism and proxy war are as old as organized warfare itself. According to Walter Laqueur, these customs were in place in antiquity in the Eastern Empires, Rome and Byzantium, Asia, and Europe.

Impacts of Terrorism

It seriously jeopardizes global peace and security and undercuts the fundamental principles of growth, peace, and humanity. Terrorist activities not only have a catastrophic human cost in terms of lives lost or permanently changed, but they also endanger political stability and economic and social advancement.

Often, terrorist attacks disregard international boundaries.CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives) materials are used in terrorist attacks that have devastating effects on infrastructure and communities.

Measures To Counter Terrorism

• The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) is responsible for leading and coordinating the UN system’s efforts to prevent and combat terrorism and violent extremism worldwide.
• Under UNOCT, the UN Counter-Terrorism Centre (UNCCT) encourages global collaboration in the fight against terrorism and assists the Member States in putting the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy into practice.
• The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC) Terrorism Prevention Branch (TPB) is a key player in global efforts.
• International standards are established by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) , a global organization that monitors money laundering and terrorist funding to prevent these illicit actions and the harm they do to society.

Notable incidents of 21st century

The 21st century has seen several major terrorist attacks that have had profound impacts on global politics, security policies, and international relations. Here are some of the most notable:

September 11, 2001 (9/11) – United States

• Details: Coordinated attacks by the terrorist group al-Qaeda, involving the hijacking of four commercial airplanes. Two planes were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon, and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to overpower the hijackers.
• Impact: Nearly 3,000 people were killed. The attacks led to the U.S. launching the War on Terror, including the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq.

2002 Bali Bombings – Indonesia

• Details: Two bombs exploded in a nightclub district in Bali, killing 202 people, most of whom were foreign tourists. Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian Islamist terrorist organization, carried out the attack.
• Impact: The bombings brought international attention to the threat of Islamist terrorism in Southeast Asia and led to a crackdown on Jemaah Islamiyah.

2004 Madrid Train Bombings (3/11) – Spain

• Details: A series of coordinated bombings on the commuter train system during the morning rush hour, killing 193 people and injuring over 2,000. An al-Qaeda-inspired group carried out the attack.
• Impact: The bombings occurred just days before Spain’s general elections, influencing the outcome and leading to Spain’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

2005 London Bombings (7/7) – United Kingdom

• Details: Coordinated suicide bombings on the London public transport system, targeting three Underground trains and a double-decker bus. The attacks killed 52 civilians and injured more than 700.
• Impact: The bombings were a stark reminder of the ongoing threat of Islamist terrorism in Europe and led to significant changes in security and counterterrorism policies in the UK.

2008 Mumbai Attacks (26/11)- India

• Details: A group of ten terrorists from the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out a series of shootings and bombings across Mumbai over four days, killing 166 people, including foreign nationals, and injuring hundreds more.
• Impact: The attacks strained India-Pakistan relations and led to a major overhaul of India’s counterterrorism and intelligence apparatus.

2015 Paris Attacks – France

• Details: Coordinated attacks by the Islamic State (ISIS) on various locations, including the Bataclan concert hall, cafes, and the Stade de France stadium. The attacks killed 130 people and injured hundreds more.
• Impact: The attacks led to a state of emergency in France and intensified the global fight against ISIS. It also sparked widespread fear and heightened security measures across Europe.

2016 Brussels Bombings – Belgium

• Details: Suicide bombers affiliated with ISIS targeted Brussels Airport and a metro station, killing 32 civilians and injuring over 300.
• Impact: The bombings highlighted vulnerabilities in European security and led to increased efforts to combat radicalization and improve intelligence-sharing among European nations.

2019 Christchurch Mosque Shootings – New Zealand

• Details: A white supremacist terrorist attacked two mosques during Friday prayers, live-streaming the attack on social media. Fifty-one people were killed, and dozens were injured.
• Impact: The attack prompted a global conversation on the rise of white supremacist terrorism and led to significant changes in New Zealand’s gun laws.

A combined effort at the international level is the need of the hour to tackle the perils of terrorism. Terrorism of any form is unacceptable in a civilized society.

Read: Nuclear terrorism

Article written by: Vivek Rajasekharan

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Essay on Terrorism

Students are often asked to write an essay on Terrorism in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Terrorism

Understanding terrorism.

Terrorism refers to the use of violence, often against civilians, to achieve political goals. It’s a form of fear-based manipulation, aiming to create panic and disrupt peace.

Impacts of Terrorism

Terrorism harms societies both physically and psychologically. It leads to loss of lives, property, and can cause trauma. It also hampers economic growth and societal harmony.

Countering Terrorism

Countering terrorism requires global cooperation. Nations must share intelligence, enforce strict laws, and promote education and understanding to prevent radicalization. Remember, peace and unity are our best defenses against terrorism.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism, a term that sends chills down the spine, is an act of violence primarily intended to create fear, disrupt societal structures, and promote political or ideological agendas. It is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, which has been escalating in frequency and intensity worldwide.

The Root Causes

The root causes of terrorism are multifarious. It can be triggered by political instability, socio-economic disparities, religious fanaticism, or ethnic tensions. Often, it is a combination of these factors, creating a fertile breeding ground for extremist ideologies.

The Impact of Terrorism

The impacts of terrorism are far-reaching and devastating. Beyond the immediate human toll, it disrupts economic stability, social harmony, and political structures. It instills fear, leading to changes in behavior and attitudes, and can even alter the course of history.

Counter-Terrorism Strategies

Counter-terrorism strategies are as diverse as the causes of terrorism. They range from military interventions to intelligence operations, from diplomatic negotiations to socio-economic reforms. However, the most effective strategies are those that address the root causes of terrorism, rather than merely responding to its symptoms.

Terrorism, a grave threat to global peace and security, requires a comprehensive and holistic approach to be effectively countered. By understanding its root causes and impacts, we can devise strategies to combat it, ensuring a safer world for future generations.

500 Words Essay on Terrorism

Introduction to terrorism.

Terrorism, a term that sends chills down the spine of many, is a complex phenomenon that has been the subject of extensive study and debate. It is characterized by acts of violence or threats aimed at creating fear, disrupting societal order, and advancing political, religious, or ideological goals.

The Evolution of Terrorism

Historically, terrorism was primarily a tool of the weak against the strong, a way to destabilize oppressive regimes or draw attention to a cause. However, the advent of the 21st century has seen its evolution into a more global menace, with the rise of transnational terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The digital age has made it easier for these groups to recruit, radicalize, and coordinate attacks, making terrorism a borderless problem.

The Psychology of Terrorism

Understanding the psychology of terrorism is crucial in tackling it. Many terrorists are not psychopaths or inherently evil people, but individuals manipulated into believing that their violent actions are justified. Factors such as social exclusion, economic deprivation, political oppression, and religious indoctrination can contribute to this mindset. This underscores the importance of addressing root causes to prevent terrorism.

Terrorism’s impacts are multifaceted. The immediate effect is loss of life and property, but the ripple effects are far-reaching. It instills fear and insecurity, disrupts economic activity, and can lead to restrictive security measures that infringe on civil liberties. Moreover, it can exacerbate social divisions and fuel cycles of violence and retaliation.

Counter-terrorism strategies must be as multifaceted as the problem they aim to solve. Military and law enforcement responses are necessary to protect citizens and bring perpetrators to justice. However, these approaches should be paired with efforts to address the underlying social, economic, and political conditions that breed terrorism.

Conclusion: The Future of Counter-Terrorism

The future of counter-terrorism lies in a balanced approach that combines hard and soft power. While military and law enforcement measures are necessary, they are not sufficient on their own. The fight against terrorism must also be a fight for hearts and minds, addressing the root causes of terrorism, and building inclusive societies where extremist narratives find no fertile ground.

In conclusion, terrorism is a complex problem that requires a nuanced understanding and multifaceted response. It is not just a security issue, but a social, economic, and political one. By addressing it in this holistic manner, we can hope to make progress in the ongoing struggle against this global menace.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Blaming a Parent, Again, for Failed Gun Laws

By Megan K. Stack

Ms. Stack, a contributing Opinion writer, previously wrote about the case of Jennifer Crumbley, a Michigan parent who was criminally charged after her son shot and killed four students at his school.

If you’re cheering on the charges brought against Colin Gray, the father of our nation’s latest school shooting suspect, it’s worth asking yourself how, exactly, he broke the law.

His 14-year-old son, Colt Gray, has been charged with opening fire at school on Wednesday, killing four people. The assault-style rifle he was accused of using was reportedly a Christmas gift from his dad.

But the Grays live in Georgia, where giving your son an AR-15-style rifle is not, in itself, a crime. (The laws appear to be stricter about handguns.) Nor does Georgia have a law requiring Mr. Gray to safely lock away his guns. Georgia is notorious for having some of the weakest gun laws in the country.

Mr. Gray rocked back and forth in shackles and prison stripes on Friday morning as the charges against him were read. His son had just been charged with murder for opening fire at Apalachee High School, killing two students and two teachers. Next came the charges against the white-haired Mr. Gray, including second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter for allowing his son access to the gun even though, prosecutors say, Mr. Gray knew the boy was a threat to himself and others.

Now father and son are both sitting in jail.

The United States, desperate to stop mass shootings, has been seized by an increasing zeal to prosecute parents. Jennifer and James Crumbley, convicted of involuntary manslaughter this year in Michigan after their son’s school shooting, hadn’t broken any gun laws, either. Prosecutors introduced lurid testimony about their personal lives and hobbies in trying to convince a jury that the Crumbleys were indifferent to their son’s mental health. When they were found guilty, many Americans were pleased.

These prosecutions satisfy the public desire to blame somebody. If you don’t like guns, shaming and punishing the parents feels like landing a righteous blow against gun culture. If you do like guns, it’s a bit like the predictable invocation of mental health by politicians — diverting attention from the weapons themselves and suggesting, instead, that the problem is a few bad apples among the owners. Most insidiously, though, these prosecutions set a murky legal precedent for questionable parenting while camouflaging the abject failure of the federal and state governments to adequately regulate gun safety and stop mass shootings.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .