Jurisprudential Perspectives of Defining Terrorism and its Effect in Pakistan

Defining a criminal activity is always instrumental in the successful execution of any intended legislation. Defining terrorism has always remained a relative issue because of its separation from the pre-existing criminal laws. Including a criminal act within the criminal legislation needs a reasonable jurisprudential base upon which it may be differentiated from other criminal acts. This paper examines how the term ‘terrorism’ has been defined by various states in their statutes. It highlights the problems in the definition of ‘terrorism’, especially in context of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, in Pakistan. The object and purpose of a differential approach regarding acts of terrorism can be specified by distributing the issue into two elements. The two elements identified are merely the objective and subjective elements. The analysis of various definitions highlights the common elements adopted in order to cope with the special issue of terrorism. The definitions adopted in the Anti-Terrorism act in Pakistan are then analysed through the broader scope of subjective and objective elements within the definition. This paper is focused upon the theoretical analysis of the relative framework adopted in Pakistan through the Anti-Terrorism Act. The arguments here are based upon content analysis whereby which different definitions are examined. It is then established that the jurisprudential aspects of acts of terrorism, which differentiate them from other crimes, are to be taken into consideration for the achievement of the purpose of the differential treatment.

Dr Asif Khan holds an LLM in Public International Law from the University of Liverpool (UK) and a PhD in the same subject from the University of Salzburg (Austria). He currently serves as the head of the Department of Law, at the University of Malakand, in Pakistan.