More than ten years have elapsed since the UN General Assembly (UNGA) decided, after the conclusion and entry into force of several sectorial conventions on terrorism, to start negotiations on a comprehensive convention on terrorism. The draft comprehensive convention was aimed at criminalizing certain violent acts committed with the intent of terrorizing the civilian population, or obliging a State or an entity to do or not to do certain acts, as well as establishing the framework for international judicial cooperation prohibiting terrorism. Immediately the negotiators faced a series of controversial issues centered on the definition and the scope of application of the convention, which being ‘comprehensive’ should cover the above-mentioned conduct both during armed conflicts and peacetime. The comprehensive convention was obviously intended to fill all gaps in the criminalization of terrorism. The characterization of using violence or an armed attack during an armed conflict was one of the main unresolved issues because, depending on the circumstances, IHL may qualify an attack either as a means of warfare or a terrorist act.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.