Defining the International Public Enemy: The Political Struggle behind the Legal Debate on International Terrorism

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 69-91

  Friedrichs, Jörg ^a  

^a JACOBS UNIVERSITY BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Carl Schmitt; Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism; definition of terrorism; terrorism; United Nations

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247193073     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156505003183     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. C. Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen (1932), translated by G. Schwab under the title The Concept of the Political (1996), 26.
2. M. J. Peterson, ‘Using the General Assembly’, in J. Boulden and T. G.Weiss (eds.), Terrorism and the UN” Before and After September 11 (2004), 173.
3. P.Wilkinson, Terrorism Versus Democracy” The Liberal State Response (2000), 197.
4. M. D. Dubin, International Terrorism” Two League of Nations Conventions (1991).
5. Italian Diplomatic Archives, Telegrams to and from New York (1972).
6. UN Doc. A/C.6/L.850 (25 Sept. 1972)” draft convention.
7. Department of State, ‘U.S. Votes against U.N. General Assembly Resolution Calling for Study of Terrorism’, Department of State Bulletin, 22 Jan. 1973, 81; L. Hoffacker, ‘The U.S. Government Response to Terrorism” A Global Approach’, in M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed.), International Terrorism and Political Crimes (1975), 537; E. N. Evans, ‘American Policy Response to International Terrorism” Problems of Deterrence’, in M. H. Livingston (ed.), International Terrorism in the ContemporaryWorld (1978), 376.
8. UN Doc. A/RES/3034 (18 Dec. 1972)” GA resolution.
9. UN Doc. A/9028 (1973)” report of the Ad Hoc Committee.
10. UN Docs. A/32/37 (28 April 1977); A/34/37 (17 April 1979); A/AC.160/SR.11-19 (1979)” reports and summary records of theAdHocCommittee. See alsoT.M. Franck andB.B. Lockwood, ‘PreliminaryThoughts towards an International Convention on Terrorism’, (1974) 68 (1) AJIL 69; J. Dugard, ‘International Terrorism” Problems of Definition’, (1974) 50 (1) International Affairs 67; J. Dugard, ‘International Terrorism and the Just War’, in D. C. Rapoport and Y. Alexander (eds.), The Morality of Terrorism” Religious and Secular Justifications (1982), 77; F. Hoveyda, ‘The Problem of International Terrorism at the United Nations’, (1977) 1 (1) Terrorism” An International Journal 71; G. Levitt, ‘Is “Terrorism” Worth Defining?’, (1986) 13 Ohio Northern University Law Review 97; J. F.Murphy, ‘United Nations Proposals on the Control and Repression of Terrorism’, in Bassiouni, UN Doc. A/9028 note 7, at 493; J. F. Murphy, ‘Defining International Terrorism” AWay Out of the Quagmire’, in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 19 (1989), 13; J. Toman, ‘Developing an International Policy Against Terrorism’, in S. Flood (ed.), International Terrorism” Policy Implications (1991), 111.
11. UN Doc. A/9028 (1973)” report of the Ad Hoc Committee, annex 7b.
12. UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1355-1374 (November 1972)” verbatim records of the Sixth Committee.
13. UN Doc. A/32/37 (28 April 1977)” report of the Ad Hoc Committee, 14.
14. UN Doc. A/32/37 (28 April 1977)” report of the Ad Hoc Committee, at 14.
15. UN Doc. A/RES/54/110 (2 Feb. 2000)” GA resolution.
16. UN Doc. A/C.6/55/1 (28 Aug. 2000)” revised draft convention; cf. UN Doc. A/C.6/51/6 (11 Nov. 1996)” original version.
17. UN Doc. A/59/894 (12 Aug. 2005)” letter containing Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, 9.
18. UN Doc. GA/L/3008 (4 Oct. 1996)” press release.
19. OIC Resolution No. 64/27-P (June 2000).
20. Malaysia on behalf of the OIC Group, in UN Doc. A/C.6/55/L.2 (19 Oct. 2000)” report of theWorking Group, 38.
21. E.g. UN Doc. A/57/730-S/2003/178 (13 Feb. 2003)” verbal note by Syria.
22. L/2993 (1 Feb. 2002)” press release.
23. UN Doc. A/57/37 (11 Feb. 2002)” report of the Ad Hoc Committee, 17.
24. UN Doc. A/59/894 (12 Aug. 2005)” letter containing Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism; cf. A/C.6/60/L.6 (14 Oct. 2005)” report of the Working Group; for the predictably negative OIC reaction see UN Docs. A/C.6/60/3 (5 Oct. 2005) and A/C.6/60/SR.3 (24 Oct. 2005), 6; for recent amendments proposed by the Friends of the Chairman see UN Docs. A/C.6/60/INF/1 (20 Oct 2005); A/C.6/INF/2 (20 Oct. 2005); A/C.6/60/SR.10 (31 Oct. 2005).
25. OIC Resolution No. 64/27-P (June 2000); a more recent formulation of the OIC position can be found in UN Doc. A/60/440-S/2005/658 (19 Oct. 2005), 15.
26. UN Doc. A/59/37 (2 July 2004)” report of the Ad Hoc Committee, 6.
27. K.Wiesbrock, ‘Wer ist Terrorist?’, (2002) 50 (2) Vereinte Nationen 72.
28. ‘World Leaders Seek Terror Definition’, New York Sun, 8 July 2005; State Department Press Release, 20 July 2005, ‘United States Urges Completion of Terrorism Convention’.
29. TheUS and British initiativewas in part prepared by Security Council resolutionUNDoc. S/2000/792 (8 Oct. 2004) and, in particular, by the elements for a definition suggested in the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change” UN Doc. A/59/565 (2 Dec. 2004), 49.
30. ‘UN Struggles to Agree on Definition of Terrorism’, Agence France-Presse, 12 Sept. 2005; ‘The Obstacles that Block theWay to aWatertight Definition of Terrorism’, Herald, 17 Sept. 2005; ‘A Reckless Salesman” Blair's Approach to Terrorism Will Not Suit All Members’, Financial Times, 19 Sept. 2005. Cf. A/RES/60/1 (24 Oct. 2005), 22.
31. Rowe in UN Doc. A/C.6/57/L.9 (16 Oct. 2002)” report of theWorking Group, Annex ii.
32. Cf. Ginkel, UN Doc. A/9028 note 16; C. Walter, ‘Defining Terrorism in National and International Law’, in C. Walter, S. Vö neky, V. Rö ben, et al. (eds.), Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law” Security versus Liberty? (2004), 23.
33. L. Migliorino, ‘International Terrorism in theUnitedNations Debates’, in Italian Yearbook of International Law (1976), II, 102; L. Migliorino, ‘Il terrorismo internazionale nei dibattiti alle Nazioni Unite’, in L. Bonanate (ed.), Dimensioni del Terrorismo Politico” Aspetti Interni e Internazionali, Politici e Giuridici (1979), 255.
34. In the 1930s the United Kingdom had been unenthusiastic about, if not highly critical of, plans for a comprehensive convention against international terrorism. British National Archives, Terrorism” Committee for International Repression (1937), CO 323/1466/11; Diplomatic Conference, November 1937” Correspondence, Reservations on Particular Provisions of the Terrorism Convention (1937), HO 189/7; Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism and Convention for the Establishment of International Criminal Court” Draft Report (1937), HO 189/8.
35. British National Archives,Motion for Recommendation on International Terrorism (1972), FCO 41/938; Reports of the 6th Committee at 27th United Nations General Assembly (1972), FCO 58/667; Measures to Combat Terrorism Including Hijacking (1972), FCO 14/1078. The quotations are from Motion for Recommendation on International Terrorism (undated document) and Measures to Combat Terrorism Including Hijacking (19 Oct. 1972); see also Freeland in UN Docs. A/C.6/SR.1359 (15 Nov. 1972) and A/C.6/SR.1390 (11 Dec. 1972).
36. British National Archives,Measures to Combat Terrorism (1973), FCO 76/633.
37. Freeland in UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1310 (25 Sept. 1972).
38. Douglas-Home in UN Doc. A/PV.2042 (27 Sept. 1972); Crowe in UN Doc. A/PV.2114 (18 Dec. 1972); cf. UN Docs. A/AC.160/1 (16May 1973), A/9028 (1973), 28; Fifoot in UN Docs. A/C.6/SR.1581 (4 Dec. 1975), A/32/37 (28 April 1977), 33-34, A/C.6/32/SR.58 (29 Nov. 1977), A/AC.160/SR.15 (28March 1979); cf. UN Doc. A/34/37 (17 April 1979), 26-27. Britain took a similar position at the Council of Europe” British National Archives, Council of Europe” Consultative Assembly Recommendation 684 on International Terrorism (1973), FCO 41/1085
39. French Diplomatic Archives,Note pour la Direction desNations Unies et Organisations Internationales” Terrorisme international, 19 juin 1973, in NUOI 1409” 1970-1973; d'Haussy in UN Doc. A/32/37 (28 April 1977), 20; cf. UN Doc. A/9028 (1973), 21.
40. UN Doc. A/9028 (1973), 21” ‘A heinous act of barbarism committed in the territory of a third State by a foreigner against a person possessing a nationality other than that of the offender for the purpose of exerting pressure in a conflict not strictly internal in nature’.
41. French Diplomatic Archives, Té lé grammes de M. de Guiringaud, Repré sentant de la France auprè s des Nations Unies” 19 Sept. 1972, 24 Sept. 1972, 03 Oct. 1972, inNUOI 1409” 1970-1973. During the 1970s, France considered international terrorism to be less of a danger to French territory than a problem in the international sphere. P. G. Czerny, ‘France” Non-terrorism and the Politics of Repressive Tolerance’, in J. Lodge (ed.), Terrorism” A Challenge to the State (1981), 91.
42. Guiringaud inUNDoc. A/BUR/SR.201 (21 Sept. 1972); d'Haussy inUNDoc. A/AC.160/SR.14 (26March 1979).
43. Bessou in UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1360 (15 Nov. 1972); French Diplomatic Archives, Note pour la Direction des Affaires Politiques” 51ème session du Comité desMinistres du Conseil de l'Europe, 12 dé cembre 1972, in NUOI 1409” 1970-1973; Council of Europe, CM(74) PV.2, 1974, 19; d'Haussy in UN Doc. A/32/37 (28 April 1977), 20.
44. France kept a certain critical distance from the Ad Hoc Committee and usually abstained from voting.
45. Lennuyeux-Comnenk in UN Doc. A/AC.160/SR.12 (28March 1979).
46. ItalianDiplomatic Archives (1972), France kept a certain critical distance from the Ad Hoc Committee and usually abstained from voting. note 5; ItalianDiplomatic Archives, Telegrams to and fromNewYork (1973); cf. L.Migliorino, ‘L'Italia e il terrorismo internazionale’, in L. Bonanate (ed.), Dimensioni del Terrorismo Politico” Aspetti Interni e Internazionali, Politici e Giuridici (1979), 313.
47. G.Medici, Italian Foreign Minister, in Italian Senate, Plenary Assembly, 6 Oct. 1972.
48. Migliuolo in UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1389 (11 Dec. 1972); cf. Italy's initial refusal to deal with the problem at the Council of Europe” CM(74) PV.2, 1974.
49. Italian Diplomatic Archives, Telegrams to and from New York (1974), 20 Jan. 1974.
50. Italy sponsored a compromise proposal, which eventually failed in 1972” UN Docs. A/C.6/L.879 (27 Nov. 1972); C.6/L.879/Rev.1 (8 Dec. 1972); Migliuolo in UN Docs. A/C.6/SR.1389 (11 Dec. 1972); A/AC.160/1 (16May 1973), 14-16.
51. Vinci in UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1386 (8 Dec. 1972); Danovi in UN Doc. A/32/37 (28 April 1977), 22-23; Forlani in UN Doc. A/31/PV.13 (1 Oct. 1976); Bosco in UN Doc. A/C.6/32/SR.58 (28 April 1977).
52. Italian Diplomatic Archives, Telegrams to and from New York (1973), 9May 1973.
53. Serafini in UN Doc. A/AC.160/SR.16 (22 March 1979); given this pragmatic turn, it is quite surprising that Italy was now in favour of defining terrorism (France kept a certain critical distance from the Ad Hoc Committee and usually abstained from voting.; but cf. also Serafini in UN Doc. A/C.6/34/SR.9 (3 Oct. 1979)).
54. G. Andreotti, ‘Considerazioni sul terrorismo’, inM. Galleni (ed.), Rapporto sul terrorismo (1981), 545, at 552.
55. G. Spadolini, ‘Una alleanza antiterrorismo fra Ovest, Est e non allineati’, interview in Corriere della Sera, 28 Sept. 1986.
56. British National Archives, Reports of the 6th Committee, France kept a certain critical distance from the Ad Hoc Committee and usually abstained from voting. note 39.
57. UN Doc. A/AC.160/1 (16May 1973), 10-11.
58. Busse in UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1581 (4 Dec. 1975); Bracklo in UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1521 (9 Dec. 1974).
59. German Federal Archive, Vereinte Nationen” Internationales ü bereinkommen vom 18. Dezember 1979 gegen Terrorismus, B 141/57349, vol. 4.
60. Paper ‘Unsere Position zum TOP Terrorismus’, British National Archives. There are no explicit statements on whether Germany thought it desirable or not to define international terrorism.
61. Genscher in UN Doc. A/31/242 (28 Sept. 1976).
62. E. Corves, ‘International Co-operation in the Field of International Political Terrorism’, (1978) 1 (2) Terrorism” An International Journal 199, at 210; cf.R. Lagoni, ‘DieVereintenNationenund der internationaleTerrorismus’, in M. Funke (ed.), Terrorismus” Untersuchungen zur Struktur und Strategie revolutionä rer Gewaltpolitik (1977), 259, at 268-71.
63. Nesi, EU Presidency Statement, ‘Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism’, Sixth Committee, 15 Oct. 2003 (http//www.europa-eu-un.org, retrieved 30 July 2004).
64. Greenstock in UN Doc. A/56/PV.12 (1 Oct. 2001).
65. See UN Doc. A/AC/252/2003/INF/1 (18 June 2003).
66. Merill House conversation, 27 Feb. 2002, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (http//www.cceia.org/, retrieved 2 Aug. 2004).
67. I.Williams, ‘Abbringen,Verweigerung, Zusammenarbeit” derAusschuss des Sicherheitsrats zur Bekä mpfung des Terrorismus’, (2002) 50 (6) Vereinte Nationen 213; R. Mani, ‘The Root Causes of Terrorism and Conflict Prevention’, in Boulden andWeiss, Paper ‘Unsere Position zum TOP Terrorismus’ note 2, at 219.
68. Only once, on 12 Nov. 2001, did the UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw declare to the Security Council that the United Kingdom would ‘continue to work to complete the comprehensive convention on terrorism’, while at the same time stressing the paramount importance of taking concretemeasures (S/PV.4413).
69. Cf. note 31 continue to work to complete the comprehensive convention on terrorism; on the British position see ‘London Attacks Should Spur New Efforts toward Terrorism Convention,Diplomats Say’,Associated Press, 8 July 2005; ‘British Diplomats Push Annan for a “No Excuses” Definition of Terrorism’, Sunday Telegraph, 24 July 2004.
70. ‘Blair Frustrated as UN Fails to Agree on Anti-terror Action’, Independent, 15 Sept. 2005.
71. Levitte in UN Doc. S/PV.4242 (6 Dec. 2000); Villepin in UN Doc. S/PV.4688 (20 Jan. 2003).
72. Barnier in UN Doc. A/59/PV.7 (23 Sept. 2004); cf. inter alia UN Doc. S/2001/1274 (28 Sept. 2001), 3.
73. Kastrup in UN Docs. A/56/PV.10 (25 Sept. 2001) and A/56/PV.15 (2 Oct. 2001).
74. Fischer in UN Doc. A/56/PV.48 (12 Nov. 2001).
75. Personal communication with a diplomat in the German ForeignMinistry (April 2004); ‘Germany Says UN Reform Agenda Falls Short on Disarmament and Terrorism’, Agence France-Presse, 15 Sept. 2005.
76. http//www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/aussenpolitik/vn/itb/itb_vn_html, retrieved 8 Aug. 2005.
77. Fischer in UN Doc. S/PV.4688 (20 Jan. 2003).
78. Shortly after 9/11, Italy declared itself in favour of a comprehensive convention; see Ruggiero in UN Doc. A/56/PV.46 (11 Nov. 2001).
79. Foreign Minister Renato Ruggiero made some cursory remarks in the Italian House of Representatives on 9 Oct. 2001; cf. also ‘Putin und Berlusconi fü r Verabschiedung umfassender Konvention gegen Internationalen Terrorismus’, RIA Novosty, 3 Nov. 2004.
80. Personal communication with a diplomat in the Italian Foreign Office (April 2004).
81. This changed around 2000, after the Indian draft had been rewritten (with strong US involvement).
82. Nevertheless, Italy accepted an EU compromise proposal that suggested that an explicit reference to the principle of national self-determination should be included in Art. 18 (now 20) of the draft Convention (R. Barberini, ‘Alcuneosservazioni sulprogettodiConvenzioneglobalecontroil terrorismo’, (2002)2LaComunità Internazionale 201, at 208-9); moreover, Italy suggested a ‘safeguard clause'” whenever the Comprehensive Convention enters into conflictwith an existing sector-specific convention, the latter shall continue to apply (Paper ‘Unsere Position zum TOP Terrorismus’., at 203; cf. Vento in UN Doc. A/56/PV.17 (3 Oct. 2001)).
83. There are interesting attempts to construct a political theory of the state of emergency (G. Agamben, Stato di Eccezione (2003)). Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is possible to construct such a theory. Although the state of emergency poses a profound challenge to the theory and practice of political and legal order, it can never be an organic part of it. The reason is that any vision of order necessarily derives from the state of normalcy, as endangered as it may be, and not from the state of emergency, as frightening as itmay be.
84. N. Elias, ü ber den Prozess der Zivilisation (1939), translated by E. Jephcott under the title The Civilizing Process (1994).
85. As the Italian Red Brigades put it, the aim of their fight was to create ‘a new legality, a new power’ (leaflet distributed inMilan in spring 1970).
86. Cf. C. Schmitt, Theorie des Partisanen” Zwischenbemerkungen zum Begriff des Politischen (1963). All this is not to deny that Schmitt, especially during his flirtation with Nazi power, had a certain contempt for legal norms and celebrated the production of ‘concrete orders’ by ‘decisionist’ fiat (C. Schmitt, ü ber die Drei Arten des RechswissenschaftlichenDenkens (1934)). On the person of Carl Schmitt see the fascinating piece by C. Lindner, ‘Himmelsschlachten oder die Heimkehr des Odysseus” Eine Reise zu Carl Schmitt’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24March 2005.
87. To the United States, as well as to the United Kingdom, the Security Council and its Counter-Terrorism Committee seem to provide a much more attractive platform than the General Assembly and the Ad Hoc Committee onInternationalTerrorism(Williams, Paper ‘Unsere Position zum TOP Terrorismus’ note 72; C. de JongeOudraat, ‘The role of the Security Council’, in J. Boulden and T. G.Weiss (eds.), Terrorism and the UN” Before and After September 11 (2004), 151).
88. Any definition in law is dangerous (Iavolenus).