Defining terrorism in Turkey
Global efforts to define terrorism date back to 1937, when the League of Nations drafted the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. The document, which defined acts of terrorism as "criminal acts directed against a state and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public," never entered into force.
The United Nations, in turn, considers terrorism "the peacetime equivalent of war crimes."
In 1999, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that identifies acts of terror as all criminal acts intended to create an environment of terror by exerting illegal pressure on private citizens, groups or the public on political, philosophical, ideological, racist, ethnic, religious or other grounds. In other words, the United Nations considers all illegal acts, practices and methods as acts of terror, which may be geared toward any objective whatsoever. Nor does the UN make a distinction between terrorism and other violent crimes.
Although the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism narrows the definition of terrorism, NATO maintains that member states may combat terrorism and even resort to military force around the world. Meanwhile, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms identifies terrorism as "any activity … aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." In December 2001, the European Union settled on a broad definition of terrorism and provided a list of acts of terrorism without making a clear distinction between acts of terrorism and other crimes. The EU, however, notes that "each member state shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below … shall be deemed terrorist offenses."
The main difference between Turkey's anti-terrorism laws and definitions of terrorism by international organizations and the European Union is that the former identifies the state, as opposed to private citizens, as the primary victim of terror, which inevitably narrows the definition of terrorism. The Turkish law also does not engage the question of terrorism as deeply as international law.
The differences between Turkish and international anti-terror laws reflect the different experiences that Turkey and Europe have with terrorism. While the PKK, the largest terrorist organization in Turkey, has traditionally directed its attacks at state officials rather than civilians, the European Union has primarily witnessed attacks on the civilian population. Consequently, Turkish law concentrates on protecting the state as opposed to individuals.
Unlike Turkish law, EU regulations clearly specify which acts, objectives and organizations fall within the scope of terrorism – the main problem with which is the impossibility of expanding the definition. Turkey, in turn, refrains from making such clear-cut definitions and paves the way for the courts to consider any illegal act an act of terrorism.
Simply put, each institution and nation-state defines terrorism according to their experiences, approach and historical circumstances.
Today, what leads to a fundamental legal disagreement between Turkey and the European Union is that Turkish authorities, unlike the United Nations, European Union and United States, create and make public a list of terrorists and terrorist organizations. In Turkey's defense, adopting the European approach might create serious practical problems for Turkish authorities, keeping in mind that terrorist attacks are frequently perpetrated in Turkey. What the European Union conveniently ignores is the predicament in which Turkey finds itself today. At the end of the day, the fact that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter creates deadlock in Turkey-EU talks.
The United Nations, in turn, considers terrorism "the peacetime equivalent of war crimes."
In 1999, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that identifies acts of terror as all criminal acts intended to create an environment of terror by exerting illegal pressure on private citizens, groups or the public on political, philosophical, ideological, racist, ethnic, religious or other grounds. In other words, the United Nations considers all illegal acts, practices and methods as acts of terror, which may be geared toward any objective whatsoever. Nor does the UN make a distinction between terrorism and other violent crimes.
Although the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism narrows the definition of terrorism, NATO maintains that member states may combat terrorism and even resort to military force around the world. Meanwhile, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms identifies terrorism as "any activity … aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." In December 2001, the European Union settled on a broad definition of terrorism and provided a list of acts of terrorism without making a clear distinction between acts of terrorism and other crimes. The EU, however, notes that "each member state shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below … shall be deemed terrorist offenses."
The main difference between Turkey's anti-terrorism laws and definitions of terrorism by international organizations and the European Union is that the former identifies the state, as opposed to private citizens, as the primary victim of terror, which inevitably narrows the definition of terrorism. The Turkish law also does not engage the question of terrorism as deeply as international law.
The differences between Turkish and international anti-terror laws reflect the different experiences that Turkey and Europe have with terrorism. While the PKK, the largest terrorist organization in Turkey, has traditionally directed its attacks at state officials rather than civilians, the European Union has primarily witnessed attacks on the civilian population. Consequently, Turkish law concentrates on protecting the state as opposed to individuals.
Unlike Turkish law, EU regulations clearly specify which acts, objectives and organizations fall within the scope of terrorism – the main problem with which is the impossibility of expanding the definition. Turkey, in turn, refrains from making such clear-cut definitions and paves the way for the courts to consider any illegal act an act of terrorism.
Simply put, each institution and nation-state defines terrorism according to their experiences, approach and historical circumstances.
Today, what leads to a fundamental legal disagreement between Turkey and the European Union is that Turkish authorities, unlike the United Nations, European Union and United States, create and make public a list of terrorists and terrorist organizations. In Turkey's defense, adopting the European approach might create serious practical problems for Turkish authorities, keeping in mind that terrorist attacks are frequently perpetrated in Turkey. What the European Union conveniently ignores is the predicament in which Turkey finds itself today. At the end of the day, the fact that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter creates deadlock in Turkey-EU talks.