The definition of
terrorism is not consensual, even within the same country. Indeed, in the
United States of America, a country where the fight against terrorism is one of
the present political priorities, the definition varies depending on whether
the source is the Department of Defense (DoD), the US Code, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) or the Department of State, but this lack of consensus
does not mean that terrorism is not considered a crime according to the
Resolution 49/6026 of 17 February 1995 of the United Nations General Assembly.
However, many experts on the thematic do not accept the definition of terrorism
as an international crime in time of peace defending that terrorism is
essentially the violation of domestic laws which have their genesis in treaties
to which states may or may not adhere, and this explains why some countries
refuse to reduce their sovereignty and do not accept to transfer the
jurisdiction for crimes of international terrorism to supranational
institutions. According to this vision, terrorism must be included as a subtype
in one of the four modalities that are already recognized by international law.
This article reflects on the relationship between terrorism and the modalities
of war crimes judged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and seeks to
show that the seriousness of the terrorist threat justifies that terrorism
should be considered an autonomous international crime.
