Dealing with terrorism<\/p>\n
Munir, Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence,
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The events of Sept. 11 have triggered fresh debate on the
\nplace of terrorism in the realm of international law --
\nparticularly in relation to human rights violations.<\/p>\n
Long before the tragedy, people throughout the world had been
\ndeeply disturbed by more systematically perpetrated terrorist
\nacts -- namely by authoritarian regimes, a phenomenon that has
\ncome to be known as state sponsored terrorism.<\/p>\n
Both forms of terrorism are derived from a framework of
\npolitical activity which strives to control people through
\nviolence, intimidation and fear. Invariably murder -- if not
\ngenocide -- is part of the equasion.<\/p>\n
To enable the law to deal with terroristic acts, terrorism
\nneeds to be clearly defined.<\/p>\n
Terrorism, in the broadest sense of the word, refers to all
\ncategories of terroristic activities -- whether committed by a
\nstate, cells or individuals.<\/p>\n
Conversely, the word also refers to a public conception of the
\nshape of terrorism that currently prevails.<\/p>\n
Since World War II, most nations have come to the realization
\nthat war and colonization have bred endless human suffering --
\nand danger, forcing them to draft principles of universal legal
\njurisdiction with which to punish those responsible for illegal
\nand inhuman acts.<\/p>\n
The 1949 Geneva Convention governs that crimes against
\nhumanity, war crimes and genocide are punishable.<\/p>\n
In accordance with the convention, the international community
\nhas strived to bring to justice those who have engaged in the
\nphysical domination or destruction of a sovereign nation through
\na variety of dehumanizing acts.<\/p>\n
Important developments in this regard were the impetus for the
\nestablishment of an international tribunal for the engineers of
\nNazi Germany's genocidal campaign against Jews and others, and
\nfor the Japanese also responsible for World War II war crimes in
\nthe Asian theater.<\/p>\n
Undeniably, the guilty in these two instances were engaged in
\nhighly systematic acts of terrorism.<\/p>\n
Since the above crimes took place, there has been an
\nincreasing awareness of the need to address the abuse of power,
\nwhich leads to the rise of authoritarian regimes.<\/p>\n
Throughout the cold war, such abuses led to mass murder and
\npolitical blacklisting in the name of ideology, which eventually
\nled to the practice of state-sponsored terrorism.<\/p>\n
International law has influence across state borders and in
\ninternational law, along with the assumption that crimes against
\nhumanity are part of all nations' obligation -- and indeed
\ninterest -- to see corrected.<\/p>\n
But this remains wishful thinking. Proof positive here are the
\nunsolved violations in Indonesia including the bloody, anti-
\ncommunist purges of 1965, along with massacres in Tanjung, Priok,
\nEast Timor and Aceh. The kidnapping of activists and many others
\nis also an ongoing problem.<\/p>\n
Another important historical point in the establishment of
\ninternational law has been the inception of the Rome Statute on
\nmajor human rights violations on which the law governing the
\nInternational Criminal Court (ICC) were based.<\/p>\n
Despite having similar jurisdiction to the 1949 Geneva
\nConvention, this court is considered powerless to resolve cases
\ninvolving human rights violations, largely because of opposition
\nby many countries.<\/p>\n
This is a serious problem -- the jurisdiction of laws on
\ncrimes against humanity, it turns out, still depends on the
\nauthority and political calculations of each nation, particularly
\nthe mechanisms in the United Nations.<\/p>\n
Even the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute is limited to acts
\nconducted by the state. And many have been disappointed to see
\nthat even these crimes have not been effectively settled by
\neither national or international law.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the threats posed by terroristic acts, as defined
\nin the narrowest sense of the word, also need to be immediately
\naddressed.<\/p>\n
Physically, terrorist acts may inflict similar damage in
\nrelation to other crimes as referred to above, yet international
\nlegal jurisdiction has been rendered powerless in coping with
\nsuch problems.<\/p>\n
We have witnessed how the community of nations has faltered in
\nthe face of terrorist acts, which has not only led to tension
\nbetween the perpetrators and the victims' countries -- but also
\nhow they have had a far-reaching ripple effect in the realm of
\ninternational politics.<\/p>\n
What we need, therefore, is a new international legal
\njurisdiction on humanity which can cover terrorist acts -- either
\nby expanding the 1949 Geneva Convention and the International
\nCriminal Court, or by creating a whole new formula, which could
\nenable it to be covered by international law.<\/p>\n
Terrorist acts, compared with other crimes that fall under
\ninternational jurisdiction, are thus crimes against humanity, in
\nview of the threat to human security.<\/p>\n
Terroristic acts also should fall under the category of
\nextraordinary crimes, given the systematic and organized acts
\ninvolved, which aim to create a greater danger for humanity.<\/p>\n
The acts of terrorists are based on a systematic structure
\naiming at having the widest impact possible; the acts are
\npolitically motivated, regardless of borders between states and
\ninternational jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
Under such circumstances, it is necessary to define a
\nterrorist crime following various acts of state terrorism in the
\nform of grave crimes that fall under the universal jurisdiction
\nand authority of the International Criminal Court.<\/p>\n
This would enable terrorist crimes to fall within the
\nauthority of the International Criminal Court. And it would pave
\nthe way for individual victims to file charges, as is the case
\nfor victims of any other international crime.<\/p>\n
The ability of the ICC to perform effectively is still
\nhampered by the lack of support by a number of countries.<\/p>\n
Some countries fear that the ICC might limit their ability to
\nconduct military operations. Consequently, international support
\nis sorely needed to materialize the efforts to empower the
\ninstitution.<\/p>\n
Protecting humanity against the threat of terrorism or acts of
\nterror by the state cannot be separated from each other.<\/p>\n
Changes to this end still need much hard work within the
\nUnited Nations -- and within its member states.<\/p>\n
International law should no longer falter in its ability to
\nreact to crimes against humanity and, in the process, bring those
\nresponsible to justice.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dealing-with-terrorism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}