Global Definitions of Terrorism - Essay Example

The definition is accurate in the sense that terrorism always involves political motives and is intended to impact large audiences. More often than not, terrorists seek emotional, not physical, effects on the audience. This is why many devices used in terrorist attacks do not kill but merely injure and frighten citizens. Simultaneously, it is at least incorrect to say that terrorism is always intended against noncombatant groups: military divisions suffer the risks of terrorism, especially in the Middle East. Moreover, terrorism is not always subnational: in the present-day world, terrorism is becoming cross-national and global. To propose a new global definition of terrorism, additional research into the statistics and nature of global terrorism is needed. However, I would propose defining global terrorism as an act of politically motivated violence against combatant and noncombatant targets by international and national groups/ agents, intended to produce fear and panic in the target audience.

The Just War theory is one of the most popular frameworks used in the analysis of terrorism and its political consequences. The Just War theory imposes six limitations on the use of weapons in wars. These limitations include:
- Weapons that are prohibited by international law should not be used in wars;
- A distinction between combatants and non-combatants should be made, and only combatants should become a military targets;
- The number of combatants involved in wars should be proportional to the desired end;
- Prisoners of war must be treated humanely, and all threats to their security and life should be addressed;
- No weapons, such as ethnic cleansing, are permitted;
- Even if the enemy breaks any of these rules, there is no reason for the armed forced to break these rules, too (Lacewing, n.d.).

The Just War theory has always been a convenient instrument of defining and judging the morality of military actions around the world. However, after the tragic events of 9/11 and the U.S.’s counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need to reconceptualize the main premises of the Just War has become urgent. The main reason why the Just War premises should be reconceptualized is that they “were formulated in a very different political and strategic milieu than the 21st century” (Patterson, 2005, p.116). Terrorism and wars are no longer the venue of states but involve numerous non-state actors (Patterson, 2005). The rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons challenges established beliefs about Just War. The war on terror in the modern world differs greatly from that ten and twenty years ago. The nature of war has changed dramatically and no longer reflects the definitions and limitations provided by the Just War doctrine. Again, additional research is needed to identify the most problematic areas of the current Just War doctrine and the moments where it can be reconsidered and reframed.

Recent military operations in Afghanistan do not meet the most important criteria of the Just War. Like in Iraq, the US’s presence in Afghanistan is usually justified by the need to liberate the Afghan nation from the discrimination and violence of the Taliban movement. First of all, wars are moral only when the discrimination of the aggressor produces grave and lasting effects on people; in the case of Afghanistan, the lasting and grave effects of Taliban and Al-Qaeda on the nation are highly questionable. Second, wars are justified only as of the measure of last resort, but it is not clear why the U.S. does not engage in productive negotiations with the country’s authorities but uses military actions as the only way to impose their demands on the nation. Finally, the Just War theory requires that the use of arms does not result in evils and disorders more serious than the evil to be eliminated (Lacewing, n.d.). However, the extent of the civil disorder in Afghanistan is reaching an unbelievable scale. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that the US’s operations in the Afghan territories are moral and conscious. Rather, the discrimination and pressures of the Taliban movement are just a cover for the American actions in Afghanistan.