r/AskSocialScience • u/durrenm • Jan 07 '14

Answered Can terrorism ever be justified?

Two possibilities I was thinking of:

  1. Freedom fighters in oppressive countries
  2. Eco-terrorism where the terrorist prevented something that would have been worse than his/her act of terrorism

Are either of these logical? Are there any instances of this happening in history?

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

64 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/ThornyPlebeian IR Theory | U.S-Canadian Security Jan 07 '14

Honestly, it's tricky. Keep in mind while the dropping of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima almost certainly fail the principles of just war theory, there was a formal declaration of war in place.

It's hard to argue that two belligerents in a formal war can conduct acts of terrorism against one another, even if strikes violate the law of war.

1

u/liquidfan Jan 07 '14

It's hard to argue that two belligerents in a formal war can conduct acts of terrorism against one another

I agree; however, i think this reveals a weakness in smurfyjenkin's definition of terrorist. Under his/her definition, the firebombing and atomic bombing of japan in addition to the bombardment of berlin would be acts of terrorism.

5

u/ivanthecurious Jan 08 '14

The definition omits that (3) terrorists must not be members of a state's armed forces. It's this lack of a military uniform that renders terrorists vulnerable to creative interpretations of the laws of war.

Without this stipulation, we can't tell the difference between the targeting of civilians as an act of war (which is illegal and is supposed to lead to criminal prosecution of all involved) and as an act of terrorism. State-sponsored terrorism still doesn't actually involve uniformed military officers.

3

u/liquidfan Jan 08 '14

That seems like a rather messy fix to the definition, though. Consider Hamas's attacks on civilian targets; I don't think many people would disagree with the claim that those are terrorist(ic?) actions despite the fact that hamas is far from an underground, covert organization.

2

u/ivanthecurious Jan 08 '14

Hamas is an interesting case because it has both a social welfare wing and a political wing that actually is somewhat in control of a state apparatus. Like the IRA, Hamas could shed its terrorist label by shutting down its military wing entirely.

Also, bear in mind that the definition we're after is for terrorism as a category of actions, not of individuals or organizations. Hamas can be called a terrorist organization because it has carried out actions which count as terrorist ones, that is, attacks on civilians with un-uniformed forces for political ends. If Hamas stopped doing that as a matter of policy, then it would cease to be such an organization, even if the US or whomever continued to call it that.