Academic

Saul on Motive & the Definition of Terrorism

By Lawrence Solum

Ben Saul (University of Sydney - Faculty of Law) has posted The Curious Element of Motive in Definitions of Terrorism: Essential Ingredient - Or Criminalising Thought? (LAW AND LIBERTY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams, eds., pp. 28-38, Federation Press, Sydney, 2007) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Controversy has erupted in many jurisdictions about the inclusion of a motive element in the criminal law definition of terrorism, in particular whether reference to a political, religious or ideological purpose or cause unjustifiably interferes in freedom of expression and freedom of religion, or invites racial or religious discrimination. This article argues that a compelling reason for including a motive element in an international or domestic definition of terrorist offences is that it helps to differentiate terrorism from other kinds of serious violence which may also generate fear (such as common assault, armed robbery, rape, or murder), while also according with commonplace public understanding of what constitutes terrorism. As such, the criminal law should recognise this distinction in defining terrorism, so as to more accurately express what is considered by the international and national communities to be distinctively wrongful about terrorism. Inevitably, this view reflects judgments of policy, politics and ethics, which may not be shared by all; but it is the critical impulse underlying arguments for including motive in definitions of terrorism.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on October 31, 2008 (boomark / email).