Terrorism : should it constitute a crime against humanity?

Abstract

This abstract explores the controversial question of whether terrorism should be considered a crime against humanity. The indiscriminate and far-reaching effects of terrorism have prompted discussions regarding its classification within the framework of international law. This study endeavours to provide a comprehensive evaluation of whether terrorism satisfies the contextual requirements for crimes against humanity by analysing the essential elements of crimes against humanity and applying them to terrorism acts. Incorporating legal definitions, historical context, and international conventions, this study examines the obstacles raised by the international community for excluding terrorism from the ICC Statute as well as the definitional problem of a lack of international consensus on terrorism's definition. It examines the contextual elements necessary for an act to be classified as a crime against humanity, contrasting these criteria with the often erratic and sporadic nature of terrorist activities. In addition, the paper investigates the concept of terrorism and its impact on international law, contrasting it with the fundamental purpose of crimes against humanity, which address the core crimes affecting humanity as a whole. Through comparative case studies and analysis of pertinent jurisprudence, the study examines the relevant jurisprudence and contextual factors where terrorist acts can be prosecuted as crimes against humanity. It provides a thorough analysis of the application of legal principles and the obstacles encountered in establishing the necessary elements for this classification. In addition, the study considers the potential ramifications of designating terrorism as a crime against humanity, including its impact on international cooperation, legal norms, and counterterrorism efforts. This study's findings contribute to the ongoing conversation regarding the classification of terrorism as a crime against humanity. By comparing and contrasting the characteristics of these two concepts, this paper sheds light on the complexities inherent in their legal classification.