Abstract
We are in a new age of terror where the potential threat to human life and suffering is much higher than it has ever been. The difference between terror in ages past and terror in the modern world is the global proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and the likelihood - a high likelihood according to our political leaders - of these weapons falling into the hands of fanatics and extremists to be used mainly against big, soft targets in the West. In the absence of an internationally accepted legal definition of terrorism we have come up with a swathe of ad hoc, poorly worded declarations about terrorism and terrorists. Vague fall back options of stopping terrorists (whoever they may be) from getting hold of WMDs or just 'spreading democracy' and 'dealing with rogue states' are totally inadequate substitutes as workable legal tools when dealing with acts of terror. Despite these severe limitations, some states have loudly declared there to be a 'war on terrorism'. The view that those who commit acts of terror are somehow not just criminals or that they are more than criminals seems to revolve around the issue of intent. That is, if the intent was 'political' then this should be treated differently compared to any other form of motivation which could be deemed criminal. This way of thinking leads to even more confusion because a delineation between terrorism (once we work out what it is) and criminality requires a whole new set of definitions and rules of behaviour to be established. Acts of terror where defenceless civilians and non combatants are deliberately targeted are criminal acts. For either side to claim that these acts are part of a 'war' rationalises base criminal activity and justifies wholesale military mobilisation for what is essentially a serious social problem.