Background Briefing

Definition of Terrorism

Human Rights Watch believes the definition of terrorism must be crafted narrowly and interpreted conservatively to limit the scope for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Clause 82 (Part 7) of the bill proposes amending the definition of terrorism in relevant provisions of UK legislation to ensure that acts done for the purpose of advancing a racial cause are included explicitly. The bill would modify the definition in Terrorism Act 2000 to read: “the use or threat [of action] designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

 

The definition of terrorism under the Terrorism Act forms the basis for a number of criminal offenses, including the encouragement of terrorism, and triggers wide-ranging powers, including the designation and proscription of terrorist organizations, and police powers to stop and search without suspicion, to arrest a terrorism suspect without a warrant, and, notably, to detain terrorism suspects without charge for 28 days.

The definition has been the subject of significant criticism as overly broad and lacking in legal precision, including by the Joint Committee for Human Rights.20  International human rights law requires that any law creating a criminal offense must be clear and precise enough for people to understand what conduct is prohibited and to regulate their behavior accordingly.21

The government-proposed change is one of two amendments recommended by Lord Carlile in order to “cement into the law clarity that terrorism includes campaigns of terrorist violence motivated by racism.”22 In addition to including racism as a motivating cause of terrorism, Lord Carlile recommended amending the definition so that only actions or the threat of action designed to intimidate the government, instead of the much broader influence, fall within it.

We are concerned that the bill does not take up Lord Carlile’s proposed amendments to the definition to ensure that only actions or the threat of action designed to intimidate the government fall within the definition, instead of the much broader current formulation of to influence.

We understand that there are concerns that the use of the verb “to intimidate” in the definition may cause difficulties when applied to a government but we do not believe this should be an obstacle to narrowing the definition in line with Lord Carlile’s suggestion. Alternatives used in international treaties include to coerce, to unduly compel, and to subvert. EU Framework Decision of 2002 and the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism 2005, for example, use the formula to unduly compel a government to do or abstain from doing any act.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and terrorism, Martin Scheinin, argues for a cumulative characterization of terrorism with reference to agreed-upon offenses in existing counterterrorism conventions when committed “with the intention of causing death or serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages; and for the purposes of provoking a state of terror, intimidating a population, or compelling a Government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”23 This is based on the language in Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) calling on states to prevent and punish such acts.24

The current definition of terrorism in the UK is at odds with this formulation, because it includes actions other than those taken with intent to cause death or serious injury and hostage taking. Human Rights Watch considers that, at a minimum, the definition should be narrowed so that only acts designed to “coerce” or to “unduly compel” the government are criminalized. We urge the House of Lords to amend clause 82 to that effect.



20 JCHR, “Counter-terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters,” Third Report of Session 2005-06, December 5, 2005, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/75/75i.pdf (accessed August 30, 2007), para. 13. See also Justice, “The Definition of ‘Terrorism’ in UK Law:  Justice’s Submission to the Review by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC,” March 2006, http://www.justice.org.uk/parliamentpress/parliamentarybriefings/index.html (accessed August 30, 2007); Amnesty International, “United Kingdom: Human Rights: a broken promise,” February 23, 2006, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR45/004/2006/en/dom-EUR450042006en.pdf (accessed June 26, 2008).

21 ECHR, art. 7.

22 Lord Carlile, “The Definition of Terrorism,” March 2007, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/carlile-terrorism-definition?view=Binary (accessed September 25, 2007), para. 66.

23 UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, E/CN.4/2006/98, December 28, 2005, http://www.icj.org/IMG/Scheininreport.pdf (accessed October 2, 2007), para. 42.

24 UN Security Council, Resolution 1566 (2004), S/RES/1566/2004, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NO4/542/82/PDF/NO545282.pdf?OpenElement (accessed October 2, 2007), para. 3.