The Hindu : U.N.'s role in combating terrorism

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Apr 14, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

U.N.'s role in combating terrorism

By Feodor Starcevic

The United Nations has had a main role in establishing international norms against terrorist acts and their codification into international law. To the world body and some of its specialised agencies we must give credit for the existence today of an international legal regime consisting of a dozen of conventions that broadly criminalise a wide range of terrorist acts that the world has experienced during the last four decades.

The problem of international terrorism was inscribed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly in 1972 at the request of then Secretary-General, due to the increasing incidence of acts of violence against innocent civilians, more specifically at that time, the killing of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. But that was not the first time the international community dealt with terrorist acts. Before that, within ICAO, the problem of hijacking was tackled and all but codified by the three conventions: 1963 Tokyo Convention, 1970 the Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention. But it was in 1972 that the world organisation confronted the problem of international terrorism both politically and legally, and in its entirety, rather than concentrating on any specific acts of terror.

The debate that year in the Sixth Committee showed how deeply polarised the U.N. membership were at that time, particularly on the basic issues such as what kind of activity constitutes an act of terrorism and whether such activity could in certain situations be justified and not subject to international sanction. Part of the debate concentrated on the causes of terrorism versus measures against terrorism. A number of countries pointed out that there are certain situations in the world, of a political or economic nature, that give rise to the acts of terrorism and that the problem of terrorism cannot be tackled effectively unless such causes are removed. Other countries regarded the discussion of causes as an attempt to offer justification for terrorist acts and insisted on urgent measures against terrorists and their sponsors. The fact that colonialism and apartheid were still very much alive in 1972 and that a number of liberation movements were either recognised by the U.N. or supported by many of its members further complicated the debate. It is a testimony to the great complexity and political sensitivity of these issues that they are still eluding agreement today, thirty years later. Much of the same debate is still going on, even though the differences in positions have been considerably narrowed, what with the end of the Cold War was inevitable.

In the following years, various meetings were held, Conventions added, and Declarations adopted. Then in 1999 a new actor emerged on the anti-terrorism scene — the Security Council. While it dealt earlier with the specific terrorist acts by Libya, Sudan and theTaliban Government of Afghanistan, invoking its Chapter VII authority in those cases, its resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999 was its first venture into the general problem of international terrorism. The resolution called all States to take certain measures of cooperation and coordination against terrorism and condemned all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, ``in particular those which could threaten international peace and security''. The Council also decided to remain seized of the matter, demonstrating its new role from that time on.

When the September 11 attack on the U.S. happened, the work went into ``fast forward'' mode, achieving some extraordinary precedents, quite interesting from the point of view of international law.

The next day, September 12, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1368, which, first of all, stated in the preamble, in a general way, that terrorist acts caused threats to international peace and security (by implication, all of them, no longer some of them) and expressed determination to combat them ``by all means'', which implies the use of armed force as well. Secondly, by recognising the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter, the resolution, for the first time, recognised military self-defence as applicable against terrorist acts perpetrated by non-state actors, again in a general way and not only in respect to 9/11. This automatically legitimised unilateral military strikes against another country, at least until the Security Council takes its measures, something that occurred earlier but was never given the stamp of approval by the United Nations.

But the Council went even further. On September 28, it adopted Resolution 1373. In its operative part, the resolution, by explicitly invoking the Council's authority under Chapter VII of the Charter, ordered the Member States to take a series of measures against international terrorism. Those measures were copied from the texts of international conventions for the suppression of terrorist bombings and terrorist financing of 1997 and 1999. Thus, in one go, those conventions effectively became binding for the entire U.N. membership, something no convention can ever achieve, not to mention the time factor involved in the process of entering into force and attracting a significant number of parties. To assure compliance with its requirements, the resolution created a counter-terrorism committee to monitor countries' fulfilment of these mandates. Furthermore, the resolution contains no explicit restriction on its scope or duration, which implies perpetuity.

Finally, on November 12 the Council adopted Resolution 1377, dealing mainly with the assistance to States to fulfil the requirements of Resolution 1373. By it, the Council, lest it was missed earlier, declared that acts of international terrorism constitute ``one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century'', as well as ``a challenge to all States and to all of humanity''. Further strengthening of these formulations can hardly be imagined. The resolution also affirms a sustained and comprehensive approach to combating international terrorism.

While these giant strides were made in the Security Council, the action in the General Assembly remained more or less along the earlier lines. With the results achieved so far, combating international terrorism has now been placed at the top of the world security agenda. The enforcement action, either by the Security Council or in unilateral self-defence, can at any time be triggered. But the achievement of a universally applicable definition of terrorism will still be desirable if the multilateral role in the struggle against international terrorism is to be strengthened.

(The writer is the Director of the United Nations Information Centre, New Delhi.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Robbed of their innocence

A safe nest

For a few dollars more

U.N.'s role in combating terrorism