Dealing with terrorism

Munir, Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence, Jakarta

The events of Sept. 11 have triggered fresh debate on the place of terrorism in the realm of international law -- particularly in relation to human rights violations.

Long before the tragedy, people throughout the world had been deeply disturbed by more systematically perpetrated terrorist acts -- namely by authoritarian regimes, a phenomenon that has come to be known as state sponsored terrorism.

Both forms of terrorism are derived from a framework of political activity which strives to control people through violence, intimidation and fear. Invariably murder -- if not genocide -- is part of the equasion.

To enable the law to deal with terroristic acts, terrorism needs to be clearly defined.

Terrorism, in the broadest sense of the word, refers to all categories of terroristic activities -- whether committed by a state, cells or individuals.

Conversely, the word also refers to a public conception of the shape of terrorism that currently prevails.

Since World War II, most nations have come to the realization that war and colonization have bred endless human suffering -- and danger, forcing them to draft principles of universal legal jurisdiction with which to punish those responsible for illegal and inhuman acts.

The 1949 Geneva Convention governs that crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are punishable.

In accordance with the convention, the international community has strived to bring to justice those who have engaged in the physical domination or destruction of a sovereign nation through a variety of dehumanizing acts.

Important developments in this regard were the impetus for the establishment of an international tribunal for the engineers of Nazi Germany's genocidal campaign against Jews and others, and for the Japanese also responsible for World War II war crimes in the Asian theater.

Undeniably, the guilty in these two instances were engaged in highly systematic acts of terrorism.

Since the above crimes took place, there has been an increasing awareness of the need to address the abuse of power, which leads to the rise of authoritarian regimes.

Throughout the cold war, such abuses led to mass murder and political blacklisting in the name of ideology, which eventually led to the practice of state-sponsored terrorism.

International law has influence across state borders and in international law, along with the assumption that crimes against humanity are part of all nations' obligation -- and indeed interest -- to see corrected.

But this remains wishful thinking. Proof positive here are the unsolved violations in Indonesia including the bloody, anti- communist purges of 1965, along with massacres in Tanjung, Priok, East Timor and Aceh. The kidnapping of activists and many others is also an ongoing problem.

Another important historical point in the establishment of international law has been the inception of the Rome Statute on major human rights violations on which the law governing the International Criminal Court (ICC) were based.

Despite having similar jurisdiction to the 1949 Geneva Convention, this court is considered powerless to resolve cases involving human rights violations, largely because of opposition by many countries.

This is a serious problem -- the jurisdiction of laws on crimes against humanity, it turns out, still depends on the authority and political calculations of each nation, particularly the mechanisms in the United Nations.

Even the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute is limited to acts conducted by the state. And many have been disappointed to see that even these crimes have not been effectively settled by either national or international law.

Meanwhile, the threats posed by terroristic acts, as defined in the narrowest sense of the word, also need to be immediately addressed.

Physically, terrorist acts may inflict similar damage in relation to other crimes as referred to above, yet international legal jurisdiction has been rendered powerless in coping with such problems.

We have witnessed how the community of nations has faltered in the face of terrorist acts, which has not only led to tension between the perpetrators and the victims' countries -- but also how they have had a far-reaching ripple effect in the realm of international politics.

What we need, therefore, is a new international legal jurisdiction on humanity which can cover terrorist acts -- either by expanding the 1949 Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court, or by creating a whole new formula, which could enable it to be covered by international law.

Terrorist acts, compared with other crimes that fall under international jurisdiction, are thus crimes against humanity, in view of the threat to human security.

Terroristic acts also should fall under the category of extraordinary crimes, given the systematic and organized acts involved, which aim to create a greater danger for humanity.

The acts of terrorists are based on a systematic structure aiming at having the widest impact possible; the acts are politically motivated, regardless of borders between states and international jurisdiction.

Under such circumstances, it is necessary to define a terrorist crime following various acts of state terrorism in the form of grave crimes that fall under the universal jurisdiction and authority of the International Criminal Court.

This would enable terrorist crimes to fall within the authority of the International Criminal Court. And it would pave the way for individual victims to file charges, as is the case for victims of any other international crime.

The ability of the ICC to perform effectively is still hampered by the lack of support by a number of countries.

Some countries fear that the ICC might limit their ability to conduct military operations. Consequently, international support is sorely needed to materialize the efforts to empower the institution.

Protecting humanity against the threat of terrorism or acts of terror by the state cannot be separated from each other.

Changes to this end still need much hard work within the United Nations -- and within its member states.

International law should no longer falter in its ability to react to crimes against humanity and, in the process, bring those responsible to justice.