Antonio Cassese argued that the language of these and similar UN statements «contains an acceptable definition of terrorism.» [45] The term «terrorism» comes from the French terrorism, from the Latin: terror, «great fear», «fear», cognate with the Latin verb terrere, «to frighten». The cimbricus of the Terror was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the rapprochement of the warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. Sami Zeidan, diplomat and academic, explained the political reasons for the current difficulties in defining terrorism as follows: Although there is no universal definition of terrorism, there are common elements that characterize it. For example, terrorism: In 2016, Brazil adopted a law defining terrorist acts and providing penalties for the commission, planning, activation, promotion, incitement and participation in terrorist acts. The draft law lists a number of acts that cause social and general terror or harass persons, property, infrastructure or public peace on grounds of xenophobia, discrimination or prejudice against race, colour, ethnicity and religion. Shortly after the law was passed, the federal police`s Operation Hashtag arrested eleven suspects who had planned a terrorist attack in the run-up to the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio. The United States The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contains a definition of terrorism that reads as follows: 1. Terrorism refers, on the one hand, to a doctrine of the presumed effectiveness of a particular form or tactic of violent and frightening political violence and, on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative and direct violent acts, without legal or moral constraints, mainly against civilians and non-combatants who, because of their propagandistic and psychological effects on different target groups and parties to the conflict, have been completed; Terrorism – includes, but is not limited to, the use of force and/or threat by any person or group of persons for political, religious, ideological or similar purposes, including the intent to influence a government and/or to frighten the public or a section of the public. The proposal to include this definition of terrorism in the comprehensive convention was rejected.

Some States Members of the United Nations have argued that a definition such as that proposed by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and endorsed by the Secretary-General does not qualify for inclusion in a criminal law instrument. Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, who coordinated negotiations on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, said a comprehensive definition of terrorism to be included in a criminal justice treaty «must have legal accuracy, security and fair labeling of criminal conduct – all of which flow from the fundamental human rights obligation to respect due process.» [48] The various sectoral counter-terrorism conventions define certain categories of activities as terrorist. Many scholars have proposed working definitions of terrorism. Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, noted the following: So we can now try to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in pursuit of political change. All acts of terrorism involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It aims to frighten and thus intimidate a wider «target group», which could include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism serves to create power where there is none, or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to gain the influence, influence and power they otherwise lack to bring about political change at the local or international level. [101] Lumpers invariably believe that terrorism is a winning tactic to force major concessions from the state. As proof, they cite sub-state campaigns targeting military personnel who effectively pressured concessions.

Notable examples include the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the American withdrawal from Lebanon in 1984, and the French withdrawal from Algeria in 1962. It is significant that terrorist dividers do not see these sub-state campaigns as evidence of the political effectiveness of terrorism. The definition of the crime of terrorism, which has been on the negotiating table since 2002, is as follows: A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the United States Army cited a source (Schmid and Jongman, 1988) that had 109 definitions of terrorism, totaling 22 different elements of definition. [10] Continuation of the dossier: Academics and practitioners can also be classified according to the definitions of terrorism they use.