In response to the ongoing threat of global terrorism, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj vocally supported India’s demand for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at the 73rd session of UN General Assembly. The proposition for CCIT was first introduced in 1996 by India, aimed at providing an international legal framework to combat terrorism.
About CCIT
The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism was India’s pioneering initiative proposed to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) back in 1996. This move highlighted India’s cognizance of the hazards posed to international peace and security due to cross-border terrorism, a realization made long before many major world powers.
CCIT’s main objectives were to establish a universally agreed definition of terrorism that all 193 UNGA members could incorporate into their criminal laws. In addition, the convention sought to ban all terror groups, dismantle camps supporting terrorist activities, prosecute involved individuals under special laws, and recognizing cross-border terrorism as an offense warranting extradition worldwide.
Definition of Terrorism as per CCIT
According to the proposed convention, any deliberate act meant to intimidate a population or compel a government, carried out with the intention of causing death, serious injury, substantial damage to public or private property, or significant economic loss is classified as terrorism.
Controversies Surrounding CCIT Ratification
The conclusion and ratification of the CCIT have faced opposition from three major blocs, leading to a deadlock in the process. These include The United States, The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), and several Latin American nations.
Resistance from The United States
The United States requested that the convention exclude acts committed by state military forces during peacetime, for fear that the convention could be applied to its interventions in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Objections by The Organization of Islamic Countries
The OIC sought to exempt national liberation movements, particularly in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. They argue the need to differentiate between acts of terrorism and the struggle for self-determination to prevent criminalizing legitimate movements.
The Latin American Perspective
Latin American countries insisted on covering “state terrorism” and violations of International Human Rights laws by states within the draft.
Presently, negotiations regarding the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention remain at a standstill due to discrepancies over the definition of terrorism. This deadlock is primarily attributed to disagreements over the applicability of such a definition to state armed forces and self-determination movements.
The Necessity of A Shared Definition
For an effective mechanism to counter terrorism, it is paramount that nations should collectively arrive at a common definition of terrorism. Countries need to look beyond self-interests and view this issue from a broader perspective, focusing on resolving the problem of global terrorism.
