Article

Self-determination and terrorism : creating a new paradigm of differentiation

Andrew Coffin

• Naval law review, Vol. 63, 2014, p. 31-66

English

The author argues that conflicts with national liberation movements (NLMs) must be regarded as international in nature if they follow the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). If NLMs respect IHL, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions, they can avoid being labelled “terrorists”. NLMs seek the human right to self-determination, and thus often develop in situations involving the “subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation”. Peoples claiming the right to external self-determination must demonstrate three things: an existing territorial bond; the violation of internal self-determination where the deprivation of rights is indefinite and sufficient to constitute a threat to the collective identity of the people itself; and an exhaustion of all effective judicial and political remedies. The author then proposes a definition of terrorism that does not overlap with NLMs’ right to self-determination. This definition must include at least: the intention to coerce (the mens rea); and the use of at least one action, target, or means or method prohibited by IHL (the actus reus). For example, if an NLM attacks a prohibited target it can no longer be protected as an international conflict and can be addressed as a terrorist group by whichever state is involved in the conflict. [Summary by students at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law (IHRP)]

• Full text

• Naval law review
• Naval law review [Vol. 63, 2014]