Terrorism And The Role Of Law
Terrorism in an eclectic manner means a group or association of people who
are pursuing a common goal that is anti-establishment in nature. We cannot term
terrorism precisely because it has assorted and vague implications around the
globe. Though the United Nations and other countries have coined different
terms, the crux of all those explanations is the same, which consistently
portrays that it is non-placet in nature.
In a landmark case of PUCL Vs U.O.I., the hon. Supreme court While
discussing POTA [Prevention of terrorist acts] 2002, the court has mentioned
"terrorist acts" specifically in which the court has discussed several elements
of terrorism that are causing a sheer threat among ordinary people. The
particular objective of a terrorist group is not only to cause harm but also to
pursue a rational goal which is illegitimate.
Those reasons are the unlawful occupation of a geographical territory to
establish or force a particular religion or ideology. Obviously, if we speak
about the root cause to cause terrorism, it may not be justified; however, by
the opinion of several beaurocrates it can be differentiated from oppression,
subjugation, corruption, injustice, poverty, deprivation, segregation, hegemony,
colonization, apartheid, globalization, modernization, historical practices,
philosophies that condone the religious abuse.
Furthermore, as George W. Bush said, "By fighting terrorists, we do not create
terrorism; ignoring them invites terrorism." Therefore, the need for the hour is
to devise ways of counteracting and combating these actions, and what other
method can be more successful in this regard than enforcing rules. So, in order
to combat this spreading filth of violence, we need anti-terror legislation
around the world.
A comprehensive legal policy to fight terrorism that should must take a variety
of complementary and mutually reinforcing steps, ranging from increased
international cooperation in the prevention, criminal prosecution, and
suppression of terrorist acts to long-term cooperative schemes to rectify or at
least reduce their root causes, if they are to result in improved control and
eventual eradication of terrorism. The decision to use terrorism is a conscious
choice between options, irrespective of the consistency and completeness of the
facts on which the decision is based.
Causes And Impacts
The several "root causes" of terrorism that have been offered do not cause
terrorism, but maybe influences that impact the choosing of terrorism as a tool.
There are no causes that allow any strategy to be used—people in similar
conditions have chosen or refused terrorism as a way of struggle.
In the twentieth and early twentieth centuries, the use of terrorism itself has
usually become unsuccessful in reaching a goal, but people who use the weapon
believe that using it would at least advance their goal, and therefore make it
easier for other resources to become usable. The late 18th and 19th centuries
were the phase of revolution when people were fighting for basic rights, the
injustice and insurrection, but choosing terrorism as an alternative was not
The role of law in counter-terrorism has been intensified in recent times.
Organizations like the U.N., NATO, FATF, and several other welfare organizations
and countries are working on counter-terrorism that emphasizes awareness of the
threat. It also develops capabilities to prepare and respond by applying several
stringent laws. FATF blacklisted countries like North Korea and Iran which
probably intends to end the majority of diplomatic relations and financial helps
by the associated countries.
These stringent actions always make a statement about how the rule of law is
being implemented steadily. Moving back to the other facets of the role of law
in crime often poses many concerns about the civil rights problems of an
ordinary man and how they are being compromised. Back in antiquity, India
experienced a series of draconian laws that set the government on a high
pedestal and terrorized commoners laws like the AFSPA is one of them.
This kind of law became infamous because it did not recognize the lawful and
constitutional security of civil rights, mainly when it came to competition and
during the time of national emergency (1975-1977) when thousands of innocent
citizens were alleged to have been unfairly imprisoned, tortured and, in some
cases, forced sterilized.
The 39th amendment to the Constitution of India inserted MISA in the 9th
Schedule of the Constitution, rendering it entirely free from any judicial
scrutiny, except on the grounds that it infringed the constitutional rights
granted by the Constitution or breached the basic structure. The verdict of the
majority of the Supreme Court in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla marked one
of the darkest times of India's constitutional history.
The decision repeals the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of India. All
of these examples were shown to demonstrate the other aspect of the role of law
in terrorism. Terrorism is an absolute threat to society, and some practical
measures are the need of an hour to combat this issue. Security analyses need to
be precise to prevent overestimating and underestimating the threat.
Threat assessments ought to be impartial to prevent prejudice on the part of
those who have economic objectives, political objectives rather than
counter-terrorism, or ideological biases towards some methods. There might be a
desire to interpret the threat of terrorism in the context of recent terrorist
attacks and campaigns. Viewing the danger of terrorism in terms of the current
threat could lead to overlooking the potential for attacks to originate in
The danger of terrorism arises from the decision to use terrorism. The source of
the challenge is changing as various organizations pick up and avoid using
terrorism on behalf of different aims, which have themselves changed over
time. In a developing countries Like India, it's critical that when
anti-terrorism laws are implemented, they're made so strict that the perpetrator
is brought to justice and doesn't get away with it because of loopholes or
The possibility of terrorism has to be carefully labelled. Inaccurate
characterization of the threat of terrorism will obscure or misrepresent the
real threat, making it more challenging to control terrorism.
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers