Editing State terrorism (section)

==Criticism of the concept==

The chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has said the twelve previous international conventions on terrorism had never referred to state terrorism, which was not an international legal concept, and when states abuse their powers they should be judged against international conventions which deal with [[war crimes]], [[international human rights law]], and [[international humanitarian law]], rather than international anti-terrorism statutes.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7276.doc.htm |title=Addressing Security Council, Secretary-General Calls On Counter-Terrorism Committee To Develop Long-Term Strategy To Defeat Terror |access-date=2009-03-25 |work=United Nations |archive-date=2009-03-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090305023524/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7276.doc.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> In a similar vein, [[Kofi Annan]], at the time the [[United Nations Secretary-General]], said it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The [[Use of force in international law|use of force by states]] is already regulated under international law".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://newamerica.net/publications/articles/2005/the_legal_debate_is_over_terrorism_is_a_war_crime |title=The Legal Debate is Over: Terrorism is a War Crime |access-date=2009-03-25 |first=Michael |last=Lind |publisher=[[New America Foundation]] |archive-date=2009-02-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221153711/http://newamerica.net/publications/articles/2005/the_legal_debate_is_over_terrorism_is_a_war_crime |url-status=dead }}</ref> Annan added, "regardless of the differences between governments on the question of the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians [or non-combatants], regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/sg-teheran26.htm |title=Press conference with Kofi Annan and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi |access-date=2009-03-25 |work=[[United Nations]] |archive-date=2009-03-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090321112534/http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/sg-teheran26.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Bruce Hoffman|Dr. Bruce Hoffman]] has argued that failing to differentiate between state and non-state [[violence]] ignores the fact that there is a "fundamental qualitative difference between the two types of violence". Hoffman argues that even in [[war]], there are rules and accepted norms of behaviour that prohibit certain types of weapons and tactics and outlaw attacks on specific categories of targets. For instance, rules which are codified in the [[Geneva Conventions|Geneva]] and [[Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)|Hague Conventions]] on warfare prohibit taking [[civilians]] as [[hostage]]s, outlaw [[reprisals]] against either civilians or [[POWs]], recognise [[neutral territory]], etc. Hoffman says "even the most cursory review of terrorist tactics and targets over the past quarter century reveals that terrorists have violated all these rules." Hoffman also says that when states transgress these rules of war "the term '[[war crime]]' is used to describe such acts".<ref name="Hoffman">{{cite book|first=Bruce |last=Hoffman|title=Inside Terrorism|publisher=Columbia University Press |date=April 15, 1998 |isbn=978-0-231-11468-4|pages=[https://archive.org/details/insideterrorism00hoff/page/34 34]–35|url=https://archive.org/details/insideterrorism00hoff|url-access=registration}}</ref>

[[Walter Laqueur]] has said those who argue that state terrorism should be included in studies of terrorism ignore the fact that "The very existence of a [[sovereign state|state]] is based on its [[Monopoly on force|monopoly of power]]. If it were different, states would not have the right, nor would they be in a position, to maintain that minimum of order on which all civilized life rests."<ref name="Blakeley">{{cite book|first=Ruth |last=Blakeley|title=State terrorism and neoliberalism|publisher=Routledge|year=2009|isbn=978-0-415-46240-2|page=27|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FoxuDCMmlqoC}}</ref> Calling the concept a "[[red herring]]", he stated: "This argument has been used by the terrorists themselves, arguing that there is no difference between their activities and those by governments and states. It has also been employed by some sympathizers, and it rests on the deliberate obfuscation between all kinds of violence{{nbsp}}..."<ref name="Laqueur">{{cite book|first=Walter |last=Laqueur|title=No end to war: terrorism in the twenty-first century|publisher=Continuum |year=2003|isbn=978-0-8264-1435-9|page=[https://archive.org/details/noendtowarterror00laqu/page/237 237]|url=https://archive.org/details/noendtowarterror00laqu|url-access=registration}}</ref>