Dealing with terrorism

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.