One Man’s Freedom Fighter is Another Man’s Terrorist

The phrase ‘‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’’ relativizes terrorism as one of the challenging issues in society (Kleinot, 2017: 273). Critically discuss in terms of defining terrorism.

Introduction

As outlined by Kleinot, there are many that argue for the relativistic nature of acts of violence in the name of a set cause. Often the argument can be summarised into the following sentiments “…one man's freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist…”

Moreover, the absence of a clear-cut definition of terrorism in contributes to the proliferation of such beliefs among individuals in the realm of international law. The discrepancy among states about the definition of terrorism is seen in their respective terrorist lists. In certain instances, an individual or a collective is labelled as a terrorist from one standpoint and as a freedom warrior from another standpoint, resulting in this conflict.

The root cause of this issue clearly stems from the opposing interests and perspectives of different states. Due to a lack of clear laws and uncertainty, a conduct that is lawful could be mistakenly seen as unlawful, and vice versa. The presence of a legal loophole, especially in cases involving terrorism, might result in significant repercussions for the global society. It has the potential to result in the infringement of human rights and the erosion of the rule of law within domestic contexts. Furthermore, on a global scale, it has the potential to disrupt international collaboration aimed at upholding global peace and security.

What is Terrorism?

The absence of a widely recognised definition of terrorism has consistently been identified as a significant challenge for counter-terrorism efforts. It can also be denoted as a demarcation to differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. The international community has reached a consensus on the precise definition and appropriate sanctions for certain international offences, including war crimes and genocide. Nevertheless, there is a lack of agreement regarding the definition of terrorism. Research indicates that there exist a minimum of 200 distinct definitions of terrorism. Although international conventions do not clearly provide a definition, local counter-terrorism conventions are more explicit on this matter. Whenever countries fail to reach a consensus at a global level, they endeavour to coordinate within their own regional domains.

Since the 1920s, nations have recognised terrorism as a worldwide problem that needs to be addressed in accordance with international legal principles. In 1937, “the League of Nations” created “the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism.” The convention defines “acts of terrorism” as criminal actions aimed at a state and intended to instil fear in specific individuals, a group of people, or the broader public.

The Convention specifically focused on the terrorist operations carried out by non-state actors and highlighted the State as the main objective of terrorism in the context of its classification. It is important to mention that this Convention was ratified exclusively by India. The broad definition of this issue contributed to the limited number of ratifications. The non-ratification of this Convention was due to the disbandment of “the League of Nations.”

After the establishment of the UN, the utilisation of force in transnational affairs was explicitly forbidden, and “the UN Charter” deliberately refrained from employing the term “war” in its written works. This worldview has significantly influenced international relations and how states address the issue of terrorism. Consequently, numerous multilateral accords were formed with the aim of making certain behaviours illegal. The recipients of these conventions are “the states themselves, and each convention focuses on a specific criminal conduct.” These texts aim to enhance post-war global security across both maritime and aerial domains. While these conventions are acknowledged as counter-terrorist treaties, none of them explicitly offer a definition of terrorism, save for “Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Terrorist Financing Convention,” which indirectly gives a definition of terrorism. While this term “…is implicit and the only definition in this collection of international treaties,” it represents a significant advancement since it places civilians at the forefront.

Therefore, deciphering the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorist groups can be perplexing when examining sensitive and intricate matters such as Israel's military operations against Palestine, Hamas' actions against Israel, and Russia's military intervention in Ukraine and its subsequent use of military force in retaliation. Moreover, when examining non-state acts involving state actors such as the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, or Nelson Mandela, the task of categorization becomes even more challenging.

Struggle against External Intervention; Terrorism or Freedom Fighters?

A primary concern of the Southern nations is their ongoing battle against external interference. The term ‘intervention’ has been employed in this context due of its broader scope compared to ‘aggression,’ as it incorporates various forms of external forces. After the establishment of the UN, the nations that were formerly controlled under the mandate system progressively achieved independence. Furthermore, the UN Charter prioritises “the equality of states” and, significantly, prohibits the utilisation of force in international affairs. There is a dispute on whether the prohibition of force “is exclusively limited to military force or not.” Nevertheless, it is evident that the prohibition of aggression is a fundamental objective and principle of the UN, and consequently, it is considered a non-negotiable standard of international law. When considering modern governments, it is the states themselves, rather than non-state actors, who have the authority to collectively/individually defend against aggressions, as stated in “Article 51 of the UN Charter.” The rationale behind such exclusivity is evident and logical. Historically, states have consistently refrained from granting recognition or legitimacy to armed organisations that are not recognised as official state entities.

Although a weak state may resort to use “non-governmental forces” to bolster its armed capabilities, as demonstrated by the Afghan government's call for citizens to combat the Taliban invasion in 2021, the ultimate accountability remains with the state. Hence, the recruitment process should strictly adhere to the constraints imposed by international law, including the “Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.” Similarly, the militias must adhere to the regulations stipulated by these agreements. The members of these agreements are required to adhere to the laws of warfare.

Furthermore, many aspects of these agreements, such as the safeguarding of civilians, possess an erga omnes nature, thereby imposing an obligatory duty on all parties involved. Prior to “the UN Security Council” taking action, a state may seek assistance from militias in certain cases while exercising the right of self-defense. However, this must be done in accordance with relevant international norms. A freedom fighter is someone who actively resists violence or seeks to remove an occupying force.

However, what judgements does international law offer about different types of interventions? Assume that state X meddles in the domestic matters of state A. State X engages in lobbying efforts with other governments or organisations in order to deny state A of economic advantages. The clarity of international law in such cases is limited. Nevertheless, it is possible to cite “Article 49 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (Note 27)” as a legal basis for using military force in response to these interventions. This article allows for the implementation of measures to address an unjust action. However, it is important to highlight that as per “Article 2 of the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles, any action or omission by a state is considered a wrongful act if it can be attributed to the state and if it constitutes a violation of an international responsibility.” Proving these two requirements in the situations stated above is challenging. Although we may assign such disruptive actions to a specific country and view them as a breach of “the principle of non-intervention,” it is important to note that countermeasures, as outlined in “Article 51,” must adhere to the concept of proportionality.

Does employing paramilitary forces against a state that has committed wrongdoing constitute a response that is commensurate with the offence? The answer is negative in accordance with “Article 50.” This article states that certain duties, such as the requirement to not use force and the obligations banning reprisals of a humanitarian nature, cannot be affected by countermeasures. Primarily, international norms prohibit states from engaging in terrorist acts under any circumstances. “Security Council Resolution 1269” reiterates the importance of combating terrorism, including acts involving states, in order to uphold global peace and security. “General Assembly Resolution 44/29” urges all governments to abstain from organising, inciting, aiding, or engaging in acts of terrorism. “The Friendly Relations Declaration” mandates that governments must abstain from organising, inciting, aiding, or engaging in acts of civil unrest or acts of terrorism in another state. Both global and local counterterrorism treaties aim to deter terrorist activity.

Struggles against Internal Tyranny; Terrorism or Freedom Fighters?

The opposing viewpoint revolves around inner disputes among groups (non-state armed actors) and governing bodies. This issue should be deliberated within the context of internal self-determination. This study contended that self-determination, in essence, refers to the entitlement of individuals to engage in the governance of their nations, and it is currently recognised as a fundamental component of human rights. By incorporating the principle of self-determination into the framework of “international human rights,” it becomes inherently interconnected with other fundamental rights. Shaw defines self-determination as the entitlement to certain rights, including “the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.” Therefore, as long as these rights are satisfied, “the right of self-determination” is also satisfied. Hence, if a community upholds human rights in a legitimate manner, engaging in armed activities by a faction of individuals under the guise of practicing “the right to self-determination” is both unlawful and irrational, and, naturally, highly unlikely to occur.

However, in cases where a state consistently and severely violates human rights, the issue becomes distinct as it involves an oppressive regime. In such circumstances, alternative methods are required to ensure “the internal self-determination of individuals.” While there is no exact standard for quantifying the gross and systematic infringement of human rights, we can typically employ two benchmarks: The first factor to consider is the target state's historical performance over an extended period of time. The second factor is the state's response to the initial expectations of its citizens during a protest movement. Regarding the first criterion, one can examine the reports from both governmental and non-governmental organisations such as “the Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch.” These reports include information on the state's freedom of speech, rights of women, rights of minorities, and other related matters.

Conclusion

The idea of terrorism is such that it requires a perspective backed by ideological, social and patriotic themes. Therefore, the idea that a single definition can be made that separates definitely freedom fighters from terrorists is not a possibility. Whatever measuring instrument that is used can be moulded for the other side during an argument or even a general discussion on the two entities (i.e. terrorist entities and freedom fighting groups). To that end, the idea that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist holds weight to a high degree. However, even this classification is not a “yes or no” deal but rather it is akin to a spectrum. Where there are varying degrees of the two titles apply to a single organisations.

Bibliography

Ahmad, Afroz. "Understanding the Efficacy of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) responses to Terrorism: A Case study of 9/11 Episode." African Journal of Terrorism and Insurgency Research 4, no. 1 (2023): 93.

Akbari, Bahman. "Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?." International Law Research 12, no. 1 (2023): 1-76.

Hewitt, Louise. "UN Security Council Resolution 1373: the substantive basis for a developing legal framework for the prevention and suppression of acts of terrorism." PhD diss., University of Greenwich, 2019.

Karamzadeh, Siamak, and Seyed Ahmad Tabatabaei. "COMBATING TERRORISM: CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES." Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 8, no. 1 (2018).

Nasution, Aulia Rosa. "Terrorism a Socio-Legal Study of Terrorism Acts in the Perspective of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law." In Talenta Conference Series: Local Wisdom, Social, and Arts (LWSA), vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 321-328. 2018.

Newton, Michael A. "Exceptional engagement: protocol I and a world united against terrorism." In International Law, pp. 460-502. Routledge, 2018.

Osisanwo, Ayo, and Osas Iyoha. "‘We are not terrorist, we are freedom fighters’: Discourse representation of the pro-Biafra protest in selected Nigerian newspapers." Discourse & Society 31, no. 6 (2020): 631-647.

Pontecorvo, Concetta Maria. "Countering Terrorism Financing at the Time of Isil: Trends and Pitfalls in the Evolution of the UN Security Council Two-Tier Framework." Ordine Internazionale e Diritti Umani 2 (2019): 235-263.

Richards, Anthony. "Defining terrorism." In Routledge handbook of terrorism and counterterrorism, pp. 13-21. Routledge, 2018.

Sandler, Todd. "Collective versus unilateral responses to terrorism." In Transnational Terrorism, pp. 407-426. Routledge, 2019.

Important Notes:

This paper critically discusses the phrase “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”, relativises terrorism as one of the challenging issues in society in terms of defining terrorism.

Obtaining a law degree is not an easy task. Law students get a number of writing tasks ranging from essays on specific topics to some lengthy assignments. Such law assignments are often very difficult to deal with. If you are also finding difficulty in dealing with your law assignment, get law assignment help from one of the reputable assignment writing services UK.

Thinking about how to write my law dissertation? You don’t need to worry at all, today there are various reputable online services available that will help you in simplifying the law dissertation writing process.