All are: (despotic, tyrannous, inequitable, oppressive, unjust, wrongful, unfair, tyrannical, unrighteous, iniquitous, heavy -handed) because I'm suffering from all! Terrorist's within their brains even while learning! In which law? God best witness & all are guilty & in what law! What a wastage of time.
In the last few years, look at the high secondary school marks & what happened to many students & teachers! This brain focusing made such problems. Haters misusing their brains to play with many student & teachers brains to take the passwords to play with the marks. Satellites can do that too! What if nations are attached like this together? Stop the 3rd world war from happening people & stop wasting everybody's time. All are guilty (Brains of what? Different Extortions, good & bad, self cheaters! While all are witnesses on each others!). Such Package of NASA or F.B.I created what? dissimulation, hypocrisy, insincerity, guile & duplicity of all. I speak God & Peace! Who's bad? I'm I bait? To all! World wide! Whose business it is? Who made this to me? And why Satellites still fucking around from the sky with me in my location & in my brain other than skulls with it's brains doing the same?
Where is the problem if I write my story? Each has own story! All playing with my conscious! & who does that has any conscious? Causing excisions & wastage! All got talented over a human sole! All God's? All wants to be Apes & satanic over me! Look what they did to me & individuals been hacking to keep on trapping!
What law with satanic networks of satellites & their broadcasting? Other than that, skull with their brains? Any has a reason? Or a clue? To treat a human sole like this?
All are guilty. How should I know who is focusing on me or who is connected with me? This is slavery as well! Causes life of shit!
I say God & peace people, not Satan & war! Stop being God over me. Yes brains?
God remain the greatest.
Welcome to
Updated on
How does it feel when you are always living in fear at your house or flat?
Being under attack by upper spying satellite with its new technologies of rays & waves that keeps on attacking you even during your sleep (Creating Ghosts) strokes & strikes! & the surrounding people knowing that & also having fun feelings to see you suffering & they also keeps on torturing your inner brain & soul while learning from you everything! (Apes & Satanic). No privacy no secrecy even for you to keep memories in own brain (not wanting to share any with!).
NASA Package: Rain brain scan, dynamic eyes & tele-transport. Passwords (I copy & past my password, not keeping in my memory) can I trust any? TV. also been used to keep on trapping & insulting the indoor persons. What business while extortion going on over you? What religions to allow this to go on! Everything is in danger because (Virus in the air, inner brain whispers also goes to many brains, satellites, TV & in the air). What a magic in the air! (Nice song). This creates Ape planet or the rise of the Apes. Are we living in a movie? All of it is a terror activities creating wastage & disaster to a complete country & yet to all countries. Study SARS virus (Fear Virus) & what caused it to many nations? Virus, intruders, bugs, spies & Satan work. What a jungle life & full of harassments.
They keep on going for you to live with no trust no logic & no life to go on with! All are witness's even satellites from above! Living in terror! My God is best witness. All are guilty! What a waste! What excuse any to have for doing so? Is it a movie or a business? What about GOD? All are God's!
All the above mentioned lasted for many years & since the year of 2000 & even before. All are happy now? No quitting from doing so! Shame on you all, making people families & individuals to feel punished for no reason at all. Brain connections & sixth sense! For how long? Bla Bla Bla & whispers! A victim yet to be victimized on a daily basis! What law of such a thing? Satan Law. Making hopeless life to many.
Is this is the way God great life for a man kind to live or all made it in this way? Who is doing this to me? Satan & Satanic networks.
God remains the greatest & to help us all.
On
INTRODUCTION
Treaty, in international law, written agreement concluded by two or more sovereign nations or by a nation and an international organization, such as the European Union. The power to enter into treaty relations is an essential attribute of sovereignty. The principle that treaties validly concluded are binding on the signatories, who must adhere to them in good faith, is a cardinal rule of international law.
II. VALIDITY
The usual conditions essential to the valid conclusion of a treaty are that the contracting parties must have the requisite capacity to enter into international engagements, the plenipotentiaries who negotiate the treaty must be properly authorized, and freedom of consent on the part of the signatory powers must exist. It is now recognized that a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the United Nations Charter (see United Nations).
Peace
treaties concluded after the cessation of hostilities were usually considered
not to be void because of the preceding warfare. Nevertheless, in 1932 the
III. CONTENT
On the international level, the scope of the treaty-making power of a state is practically unlimited. It includes the acquisition of foreign territory, the cession of domestic territory, the delimitation and rectification of boundaries, the promise of mutual assistance, the guarantee of foreign investments, and the extradition of persons accused or convicted of crimes. Treaties may be of a law-making character and of a multilateral nature, such as the conventions on the law of the sea and on the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions and their staff. Multilateral treaties are also the basis for the establishment of international organizations and the determination of their individual functions and powers.
IV. TYPES OF TREATIES
Many treaties can be classified as either political or commercial agreements. Political treaties may relate to mutual defense in case of armed attack; to guarantees of a particular status, such as neutrality; or to the preservation of existing boundaries. Treaties of alliance that promised mutual support in the event of war are no longer valid to the extent that they violate the UN Charter. Commercial treaties usually provide mutual economic advantage, such as reduced tariffs on the imported products of the parties to the agreement. In modern times such treaties often contain a clause stipulating that each signatory will extend to every other signatory treatment equally favorable to that accorded to any other nation (the most-favored-nation clause). The most important multilateral treaty of that type is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The national treatment clause in commercial treaties assures equal treatment to the nationals of each signatory to the agreement. Another class of treaties provides for the submission of disputes to arbitration by special tribunals or to the adjudication of disputes by institutions such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice.
V. CONCLUSION AND RATIFICATION
International law prescribes neither a fixed form for a treaty nor any fixed procedure for its conclusion. It may be concluded by an exchange of diplomatic notes incorporating an agreed-upon text signed by authorized officials or by the signing of one or more copies of the text by officials authorized to express the consent of their respective governments to be bound by the treaty. Many important treaties require ratification by each of the contracting parties. In such cases the negotiators, after reaching agreement on the final text, sign the document and then submit the proposed treaty for ratification to the constitutionally authorized authority, usually the head of state or head of the government.
VI. TERMINATION
Treaties may be terminated in various ways. The treaty itself may provide for its termination at a specified time or it may allow one party to give notice of termination, effective either at the time of receipt or following the expiration of a specified period. A treaty may be terminated by one signatory's repudiation of its obligations; such a unilateral termination, however, may provoke retaliatory measures. A treaty may also be terminated by reliance on the principle rebus sic stantibus (“things remaining that way”), that is, when the state of affairs assumed by the signatory parties (when they signed the treaty, and therefore the real basis of the treaty), no longer exists, and a substantial change in conditions has taken place.
VII. THE VIENNA CONVENTION
Rules of international law governing the conclusion, validity, effects, interpretation, modification, suspension, and termination of treaties were codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted in 1969 at a conference convened by a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Representatives from 110 nations participated, including the United States, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and most other United Nations members, as well as several nonmembers including Switzerland. The draft was prepared by the International Law Commission. The convention went into force in January 1980 after ratification by 35 nations. The U.S. signed but has not yet ratified the convention; however, the U.S. considers most of the Vienna Convention's rules as representing customary international law.
Most modern constitutions vest the power to conclude treaties in the head of state, but require prior approval by the legislature. Under the U.S. Constitution the treaty-making power is vested in the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate. An important treaty usually is negotiated by the State Department and then submitted to the Senate for approval by a two-thirds vote of the members present. The Senate may make its approval dependent on the inclusion of amendments, reservations, or other declarations that require acceptance by the other parties involved. After final approval, the treaty goes to the president for ratification. The president may conclude agreements on his own authority if the conclusion of such agreements is authorized by a treaty already approved by the Senate, or by statute or joint resolution adopted by Congress within its constitutional powers, or by the constitutional powers of the president as chief executive and commander-in-chief. The scope of the president's power to conclude agreements without congressional consent has caused political controversy.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Remarks by Reagan and Gorbachev
REAGAN: It was over six years ago, Nov. 18, 1981, that I first proposed what would come to be called the Zero Option. It was a simple proposal--one might say disarmingly simple.
Unlike treaties in the past, it didn't simply codify the status quo or a new arms buildup, it didn't simply talk of controlling an arms race. For the first time in history the language of arms control was replaced by arms reduction--in this case the complete elimination of an entire class of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles.
Of course, this required a dramatic shift in thinking, and it took conventional wisdom some time to catch up. Reaction, to say the least, was mixed. To some the zero option was impossibly visionary and unrealistic and to others merely a propaganda ploy. But with patience, determination and commitment, we've made this impossible vision a reality.
General Secretary Gorbachev, I'm sure you're familiar with [19th-century Russian writer and satirist] Ivan Kriloff's tale about the swan, the crawfish and the pike. It seems that once upon a time these three were trying to move a wagon-load together. They hitched and harnessed themselves to the wagon. It wasn't very heavy but no matter how hard they worked, the wagon just wouldn't move. You see, the swan was flying upward, the crawfish kept crawling backward and the pike kept making for the water. The end result was they got nowhere, and the wagon is still there to this day.
Well, strong and fundamental moral differences continue to exist between our nations, but today, on this vital issue at least, we have seen what can be accomplished when we pull together.
The numbers alone demonstrate the value of this agreement. On the Soviet side over 1,500 deployed warheads will be removed, and all ground-launched intermediate range missiles including the SS-20's will be destroyed.
On our side our entire complement of Pershing 2 and ground-launched cruise missiles with some 400 deployed warheads will all be destroyed. Additional backup missiles on both sides will also be destroyed.
But the importance of this treaty transcends numbers. We have listened to the wisdom in an old Russian maxim, and I'm sure you're familiar with it. Mr. General Secretary, though my pronunciation may give you difficulty, the maxim is doveryai no proveryai. Trust but verify.
GORBACHEV: You repeat that at every meeting.
REAGAN: I like it.
This agreement contains the most stringent verification regime in history, including provisions for inspection teams actually residing in each other’s territory and several other forms of on-site inspection as well.
This treaty protects the interests of America's friends and allies. It also embodies another important principle, the need for glasnost, a greater openness in military programs and forces.
We can only hope that this history-making agreement will not be an end in itself but the beginning of a working relationship that will enable us to tackle the other issues, urgent issues, before us—strategic offensive nuclear weapons, the balance of conventional forces in Europe, the destructive and tragic regional conflicts that beset so many parts of our globe and respect for the human and natural rights that God has granted to all men.…
To quote another Russian proverb—as you can see I’m becoming quite an expert in Russian proverbs—the harvest comes more from sweat than from the dew.…
Well, now, Mr. General Secretary, would you like to say a few words before we sign the treaty?
GORBACHEV: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, comrades, succeeding generations will hand down their verdict on the importance of the events which we are about to witness.
But I will venture to say that what we are going to do--the signing of the first-ever agreement eliminating nuclear weapons--has a universal significance for mankind, both from the standpoint of world politics and from the standpoint of humanism.
For everyone and, above all, for our two great powers the treaty, whose text is on this table, offers a big chance at last to get onto the road leading away from the threat of catastrophe.
It is our duty to take full advantage of that chance and move together toward a nuclear-free world which holds out for our children and grandchildren and for their children and grandchildren the promise of a fulfilling and happy life without fear and without a senseless waste of resources on weapons of destruction.
We can be proud of planting this sapling which may one day grow into a mighty tree of peace. But it is probably still too early to bestow laurels upon each other.
As the great American poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson said, the reward of a thing well done is to have done it.
So let us reward ourselves by getting down to business. We have covered a seven-year-long road replete with intense work and debate. One last step toward this table and the treaty will be signed.
May Dec. 8, 1987, become a date that will be inscribed in the history books, a date that will mark the watershed separating the era of a mounting risk of nuclear war from the era of demilitarization of human life.
Treaty Excerpts
Article I
In accordance with the provisions of this Treaty which includes the Memorandum of Understanding and Protocols which form an integral part thereof, each Party shall eliminate its intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, not have such systems thereafter, and carry out the other obligations set forth in this Treaty.…
Article III
1) For the purposes of this Treaty, existing types of intermediate-range missiles are:
a. for the United States of America, missiles of the types designated by the United States of America as the Pershing II and the BGM-109G, which are known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same designations; and
b. for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the types designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the RSD-10, the R-12 and the R-14, which are known to the United States of America as the SS-20, the SS-4 and SS-5, respectively.
(2) For the purposes of this Treaty, existing types of shorter-range missiles are:
a. for the United States of America, missiles of the type designated by the United States of America as the Pershing 1A, which is known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same designation; and
b. for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the types designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the OTR-22 and the OTR-23, which are known to the United States of America as the SS-12 and the SS-23, respectively.
Article IV
(1) Each Party shall eliminate all its intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, and all support structures and support equipment of the categories listed in the Memorandum of Understanding associated with such missiles and launchers, so that no later than three years after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter no such missiles, launchers, support structures or support equipment shall be possessed by either Party.
(2) To implement paragraph 1 of this Article, upon entry into force of this Treaty, both parties shall begin and continue throughout the duration of each phase, the reduction of all types of their deployed and non-deployed intermediate-range missiles and deployed and non-deployed launchers of such missiles and support structures and support equipment associated with such missiles and launchers in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.…
Article V
(1) Each Party shall eliminate all its shorter-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, and all support equipment of the categories listed in the Memorandum of Understanding associated with such missiles and launchers, so that no later than 18 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter no such missiles, launchers or support equipment shall be possessed by either Party.
(2) No later than 90 days after entry into force of the Treaty, each Party shall complete the removal of all its deployed shorter-range missiles and deployed and non-deployed launchers of such missiles to elimination facilities and shall retain them at those locations until they are eliminated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol of Elimination. No later than 12 months after entry into force of the Treaty, each Party shall complete the removal of all its non-deployed shorter-range missiles until they are eliminated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Elimination.…
Source: The New York Times, December 9, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Reason for Hope: The International Human Rights Movement at 50
By Marvin E. Frankel
The concept of international human rights owes its beginnings to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. During World War II (1939-1945), the Nazis murdered millions of Jews and hundreds of thousands of others, including Roma (Gypsies), homosexuals, Soviet prisoners of war (POWs), and the mentally ill in gas chambers, by firing squad, and other methods. The world had never faced such monumental crimes, and the Allied forces that were victorious in World War II set out to ensure that such a thing could never happen again. Both the concept and the word genocide—coined in 1944 by Polish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin to describe the horror of the Nazi Holocaust—were part of Hitler's legacy.
In the waning days of the war, four Allied nations—China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the United Kingdom, and the United States—began working to establish a representative world body with a mandate to maintain world peace. Their efforts culminated in the birth of the United Nations (UN) in 1945. Two years later the UN created the Commission on Human Rights, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. And on December 10, 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an event that marked the birth of the modern human rights movement.
Before World War II, the actions of a sovereign government within its own borders were, with rare exceptions, no business of outsiders or foreign governments. When repressive governments abused their own people, individuals or leaders in other countries might express outrage, but such protests had no standing in international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gave the global community grounds on which to confront countries that fail to uphold human rights.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), created in 1993 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, directs the UN's human rights efforts. But despite the efforts of the UN, regional bodies, and private organizations, millions of people around the world still suffer from human rights violations. Nevertheless, the fight to bring human rights to every corner of the globe has made remarkable progress over the last 50 years.
Defining and Codifying Human Rights
At the end of World War II, the Allies convened tribunals to try those accused of war crimes (violations of international agreements governing the conduct of war) and crimes against humanity, such as torture and genocide. The first trials, based in Nürnberg, Germany, prosecuted about 200 Nazi leaders, military officials, and civilians. Several dozen were sentenced to death, and most of the rest were imprisoned. Trials of Japanese leaders and enlisted men resulted in the execution of several hundred defendants.
These trials helped establish the principle of accountability before the international community. Three years later the UN declaration on human rights was created based on the shared values, the constitutions, and traditions of a number of countries, notably Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The universal human rights outlined in the declaration include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; to freedom of conscience, religion, opinion, expression, association, and assembly; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
But exactly what rights should be considered universal is a matter of continuing debate. Socialist countries, for example, often place a higher emphasis on the right to work and to adequate housing, while many liberal capitalist nations believe freedoms from government control—such as the right to privacy, a fair trial, and a free press—are more important. In some societies the concept of human rights is shaped by religion, such as in Islamic societies, where what many people from other cultures regard as the rights of women sometimes contradict religious teachings. And some governments claim that their citizens value social order over individual freedom. But despite these differences, there is wide agreement on fundamental rights such as protections against arbitrary arrest, torture, and summary execution.
The universal declaration was followed by a series of conventions and covenants that addressed specific issues and codified the rights outlined by the declaration. Examples include the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted in 1948 and signed by 42 countries); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966, signed by 59 countries); and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966, signed by 61 countries). Other documents addressed racial discrimination, the status of refugees, discrimination against women, the rights of children, and the use of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment.
Unfortunately these steps did not quickly end human rights violations. The years since 1945 have seen gross violations by authoritarian regimes, including several instances of genocide. In the late 1970s about 1.7 million people died at the hands of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge movement. Indonesia's forcible incorporation of East Timor in 1976 reportedly led to the deaths of as many as 100,000 Timorese. And between 500,000 and 1 million members of Rwanda's minority Tutsi ethnic group and politically moderate members of the majority Hutu ethnic group were slaughtered by Rwanda's Hutu-led government in 1994.
Scrutiny and Enforcement
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights catapulted the issue of human rights to the forefront of international politics and touched off a worldwide human rights movement. But nations that sign UN covenants and other international treaties do not always uphold their responsibilities. To combat violations, many international human rights organizations have means for confirming and enforcing compliance.
Among the UN's most effective investigators are its “special rapporteurs,” who report on specific nations or on practices that violate human rights. Special rapporteurs have investigated violations in countries around the world. The light shed by these reports has helped expose and halt human rights abuses. The UN also uses other means, such as public censure and the threat of economic sanctions, to encourage violators to comply with international law.
Regional organizations also play a role in enforcing human rights laws. Among the first were the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, both created by the Council of Europe in 1950. The commission and court are empowered to enforce the rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), established in 1950. Under the ECHR, member governments or individuals may bring charges of human rights violations against other member countries. Individuals may also charge their own government with violations. Disputes are resolved by the commission, or, if that fails, charges may be submitted to the court. The system has functioned well. In the majority of cases, member governments have accepted and complied with judgments issued by the court.
Another significant step in the enforcement of human rights was the Helsinki Accords, a series of agreements reached between 1973 and 1975 among participants in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), now known as the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Intended to ease Cold War tensions, the Helsinki Accords granted concessions to the USSR and its allies—such as official recognition of the division of Germany—in return for commitments from the USSR and Eastern European nations to respect human rights. The accords resulted in relaxed surveillance and reduced brutality by the Soviet secret police and in freedom for Jewish and human rights activist Natan Sharansky, human rights activist Vladimir Slepak, and others.
Nations of the western hemisphere, united in the Organization of American States (OAS), followed the European example and created the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 1959 and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 1978. These organizations play much the same roles as their European counterparts. But the United States, the OAS's largest and most influential member, has never fully participated in the system, thus weakening the OAS apparatus.
Africa has also followed Europe's lead. In 1986 the Organization of African Unity (OAU) created the African Commission on Human and People's Rights. A human rights court is also planned.
Nongovernmental Organizations
Human rights play an important role in international relations, but the issue sometimes takes a back seat to other concerns. Compromises and tradeoffs on human rights are not always admirable, but they do happen. In the era of the Cold War, for example, the United States and its allies overlooked and downplayed human rights violations in anti-Communist countries such as Chile, Turkey, and the former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Meanwhile the United States vigorously assailed violations committed in Communist countries such as Cuba and the USSR.
Unlike international and regional bodies, private human rights organizations focus exclusively on the issue of human rights. As a result, these nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have played a major role in exposing human rights violations and achieving remedies.
The earliest and best-known NGO is Amnesty International (AI). Founded in the United Kingdom in 1961, AI primarily concerns itself with Prisoners of Conscience (defined by AI as “people imprisoned because of peaceful expression of their beliefs, politics, race, religion, color, or national origin”). Through letter-writing campaigns, fact-finding missions, annual human rights reports, and other means, AI has helped bring freedom to incarcerated people around the world.
One of the most prominent human rights groups in the United States is Human Rights Watch (HRW), founded in 1978. HRW monitors human rights violations and issues annual reports assessing the state of human rights in countries around world.
A number of other NGOs work patiently and sometimes in dangerous circumstances to protect human rights, including the International Commission of Jurists, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland; Article 19, a British organization; the French organization Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme (International Federation of Human Rights leagues); Israel's B'Tselem (in the image of); and Argentina's Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (Center for Legal Studies). Besides monitoring violations and publishing studies, these organizations hold demonstrations, file legal actions, organize petitions and letter-writing campaigns, and testify before national and international committees. Their efforts are central to the human rights movement.
One grim story, which unfolded over nearly two decades, illustrates the vital role these groups can play. On December 2, 1980, three nuns and a Catholic lay worker from the United States were seized, raped, and murdered in El Salvador. The family of one victim, together with members of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR)—a nonprofit human rights organization based in New York City—began investigating involvement by El Salvador's National Guard, an elite national security agency.
In 1984 five low-ranking Salvadoran National Guardsmen were convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. But the LCHR continued to press its belief that the order to kill the women came from higher up. Finally, in April 1998, four of the convicted guardsmen told the LCHR that they had acted on orders from superiors.
Truth and Reconciliation
Violations such as those committed in El Salvador often occur in secret, making it difficult to determine who was responsible for any single incident. The desire to unmask those responsible for human rights abuses such as those in El Salvador gave rise to institutions known as truth commissions, investigative bodies with a mandate to document and assign responsibility for abuses. Truth commissions work on the principle that airing the truth about what happened during a period of repression offers catharsis to a population and a chance for the rebuilding process to begin in a society.
Sometime after 1950 the Spanish word desaparecido (disappeared) became a noun used to describe people who had been kidnapped and tortured or killed by government or rebel forces in Latin America. The thousands of tragic disappearances began in Guatemala in the 1960s. The practice spread to Chile following that country's U.S.-backed military coup in 1973, and into Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and finally to countries outside of Latin America such as Afghanistan and the Philippines. Beginning in the late 1970s, however, many of these countries replaced dictatorial regimes with democratic governments. A key factor was popular pressure for human rights, generated by groups like Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the May Square, an Argentine group made up primarily of mothers whose children had disappeared) which marched through Buenos Aires with photographs of their loved ones, crying “Give us back our children!”
For countries such as Argentina, which reverted from military rule in 1983, the transition to democracy introduced a new problem. Thousands of victims of abuse and the relatives of those who were murdered cried out for retribution. Punishment, these groups argued, would send a signal that human rights are valued and that violators would be brought to justice in the future.
But others worried about the risks involved with putting the military on trial. In Argentina, as elsewhere, the change to more democratic governments had been achieved gradually, and the military remained powerful and often resentful of calls for prosecution. In some countries the military threatened to resist any efforts to punish them.
Still others questioned whether it was right to seek retribution instead of reconciliation. It might take years to punish all those responsible for the violations, a period during which feelings of bitterness would continue to divide the population.
Confronted with these arguments, Argentina developed a way of addressing the abuses that came to serve as a model for countries around the world. The Comisi?n Nacional para Investigatar el Destino de los Desparecidos (CONADEP, National Commission on the Disappeared) was created to recall and record abuses committed under military rule. Led by Ernesto S?bato, a distinguished writer, the commission heard testimony from hundreds who suffered or who lost relatives at the hands of the junta and reported on some 9000 persons who had disappeared. This process revealed some of the unspeakable acts committed by the junta, such as the practice of drugging victims and dropping them into the sea from airplanes, and the separation of children from parents.
The commission's final report, titled Nunca M?s (1984; Never Again, 1986), catalogued the agonies inflicted by the military junta and became a best-seller. In it S?bato described the chilling effect that Argentina's so-called dirty war had on its society.
A feeling of complete vulnerability spread throughout Argentine society, coupled with the fear that anyone, however innocent, might become a victim of the neverending witch-hunt…anyone was at risk—from those who were proposing social revolution, to aware adolescents who merely went out to the shanty towns to help the people living there.
A few junta leaders, such as General Jorge Videla, president during the junta years (1976-1983), were tried and imprisoned. A few years later, however, President Carlos Menem granted pardons to those who had been convicted or were standing trial, a move triggered partially by pressure from the military and the need to curb military unrest.
Argentina's commission was the first significant example of a truth commission. Not every such commission has been successful, but others have functioned effectively in Chile and El Salvador. In South Africa, the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation, formed in 1995, continues to play a vital role in the transition from minority to majority rule in that country.
Chaired by Nobel Peace prize-winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African commission has a mandate to investigate human rights violations committed during South Africa's period of apartheid (Afrikaans for “separateness,” South Africa's system of racial separation that lasted from 1948 to 1990). To further that goal the commission has the power to grant amnesty to violators who provide full, detailed, and truthful accounts of the crimes they committed. The more famous cases documented by the commission include the 1977 murder in police custody of antiapartheid activist Stephen Biko.
Those seeking amnesty from the South African commission have not been limited to officials from the former white-dominated government. Officials from the African National Congress (ANC), now South Africa's ruling party, have sought amnesty for instances of beatings, torture, and the execution of people believed to have spied or informed on the ANC.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, and the Need for Justice
Some violations are so heinous that societies feel the only way to address them is to put the perpetrators on trial. In the early 1990s the breakup of the former Yugoslavia triggered savage fighting in the former republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The region split into areas controlled by three ethnic groups—Serbs, Croats, and Muslims—each of which participated, to varying degrees, in a genocidal practice known as ethnic cleansing: the elimination, through forced expulsion or murder, of rival ethnic groups. Thousands of civilians were killed outright or held in concentration camps where they were starved, beaten, raped, and murdered.
These acts so shocked the world that in 1993 the UN Security Council ordered the creation of “an international tribunal…for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.” The first international war crimes court since World War II, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was granted the power to impose a maximum sentence of life in prison.
In May 1997 the tribunal delivered its first verdict, convicting Dusan Tadic, a Bosnian Serb, of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But high-level figures such as Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karad?i?—one of the masterminds of the ethnic cleansing campaign pursued by the Bosnian Serbs—remained at large, and the ICTY came under fire from critics who deplored the slow pace of prosecutions. Nevertheless, the tribunal's existence served as some assurance that human rights violations would not be ignored or casually forgiven. By April 1998 the ICTY had publicly indicted 74 people and placed 26 in custody. Several others were named in sealed indictments.
Meanwhile, in 1994, Rwanda was torn apart by civil strife. Members of the majority Hutu ethnic group slaughtered hundreds of thousands of minority Tutsi and politically moderate Hutus. In response, the UN Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in November 1994.
The ICTR, located near Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, has its own judges but shares its chief prosecutor and appeals judges with the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The ICTR registered its first conviction in May 1998 when Jean Kambanda, who was prime minister of Rwanda during the massacres, pled guilty to charges of genocide. Kambanda also agreed to testify against other members of the Rwandan government, a major breakthrough for the ICTR. A total of 35 people have been indicted by the ICTR, and 24 of those are in custody.
Unlike the Nürnberg trials and those held in Japan at the end of World War II, the ICTY and ICTR cannot be accused of having been imposed by victors upon defeated nations. But they are less than perfect because they were established ad hoc (for the particular case at hand). Many experts believe it is necessary to establish a permanent court to consider cases involving allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
A movement to establish just such an institution has been underway for several decades, and UN delegates were scheduled to begin work on a proposal to establish a body known as the International Criminal Court (ICC) in June 1998. But concerns that an international criminal court would infringe on the sovereignty of individual nations mean that some countries, such as the United States, are likely to oppose its creation.
International courts such as the ICTY and ICTR can be effective, but it is preferable, if possible, for affected countries to hold their own trials. This indicates a commitment by the country itself to human rights, rather than compliance forced by foreign countries. Another benefit is that the trials are generally more popular than those conducted by an international body.
Rwanda began this process in January 1997. But because of inadequate jails and shortages of lawyers, prosecutors, and judges more than 100,000 prisoners still await trial. And those whose cases do come to trial often lack adequate defense counsel, leading some critics to question whether the trials are fair. Dozens of defendants have been convicted, and many of those have been sentenced to death. The first executions occurred in April 1998.
Reason for Hope
The last third of the 20th century has witnessed substantial improvements in worldwide respect for human rights. But hundreds of millions of people still live in societies where serious human rights violations occur. Sudan and Nigeria, under military dictatorships since 1989 and 1993, respectively, both suffer from widespread human rights violations, according to UN special rapporteurs, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR), and Human Rights Watch (HRW).
Latin America has seen major improvements, but violent acts and official abuse by authorities continue. According to Amnesty International (AI), police brutality persists in varying degrees in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Paraguay, and Venezuela. In addition, AI and others have reported that arbitrary arrests and detentions continue to occur in many Latin American countries.
Human rights are respected throughout most of Europe, with some notable exceptions among the countries of the former Soviet Union. Authoritarian regimes and human rights abuses are found in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, according to AI and other organizations. Russia suffers from some police abuses, but experts generally agree that the general situation there is substantially improved over the Soviet era.
Organizations such as the LCHR and HRW have argued that the Middle East and North Africa are also areas where human rights violations continue to occur. And human rights are not yet flourishing in Asia, home to a large segment of the world population. More than 1.2 billion people live in China, where, according to AI and HRW, government opponents are often subjected to corrupt and politically influenced trials. In addition, AI has reported that thousands are executed each year without the benefit of a trial.
Nevertheless, there are sound reasons for optimism. The early efforts of the UN to define and codify human rights have given rise to a worldwide network of organizations maintaining a constant watch for violations. And when gross violations such as genocide occur, the international community has begun moving to punish those responsible. This has served to increase interest in human rights and has made the issue one of global importance. The trend is toward the elimination of human rights abuses.
One factor behind this trend is economics. In the past, powerful countries exploited the peoples of developing nations, often encouraging repression rather than opposing it. Today, more and more international businesses recognize that in order to do business safely, reliably, and rewardingly they need decent, stable governments that respect the rule of law.
The cause of human rights is gaining ground as people learn about and demand their rights. It is a process that has proven very difficult to stop.
About the author: Marvin E. Frankel is a lawyer and former federal district court judge who has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is chairman emeritus of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR) and coauthor of Out of the Shadows of Night: The Struggle for International Human Rights.
Source: Encarta Yearbook, May 1998.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1948—gave human rights a new international legal status. Building on precedents set by the British Magna Carta (1215), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), and the United States Bill of Rights (1791), the Universal Declaration also reflected the events of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly the Nazi Holocaust. Reports of Nazi atrocities shocked people around the world and gave momentum to an effort to codify human rights in international law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
The UN also operates the office of High Commissioner for Human Rights. The General Assembly created this position in 1993. The commissioner oversees all the UN’s human rights programs, works to prevent human rights violations, and investigates human rights abuses. The commissioner also has the power to publicize abuses taking place in any country, but does not have the authority to stop them. However, most publicity about human rights abuses does not come from the UN but from rival countries or from nongovernmental organizations, such as Amnesty International.
The UN has also drawn up four international conventions (treaties) on human rights, which are legally binding but hard to enforce. The conventions address the problems of genocide, racial discrimination, civil and political rights, and economic and social rights. The treaties have been ratified by only about half of the world’s nations. The United States has only ratified the convention on genocide and has declined to ratify the others. Other countries have also refused to sign the conventions, citing concerns about the specific terms of the conventions and the loss of authority that such treaties imply.
Nevertheless, there are sound reasons for optimism. The early efforts of the UN to define and codify human rights have given rise to a worldwide network of organizations maintaining a constant watch for violations. And when gross violations such as genocide occur, the international community has begun moving to punish those responsible. This has served to increase interest in human rights and has made the issue one of global importance. The trend is toward the elimination of human rights abuses.
One factor behind this trend is economics. In the past, powerful countries exploited the peoples of developing nations, often encouraging repression rather than opposing it. Today, more and more international businesses recognize that in order to do business safely, reliably, and rewardingly they need decent, stable governments that respect the rule of law.
The cause of human rights is gaining ground as people learn about and demand their rights. It is a process that has proven very difficult to stop.
About the author: Marvin E. Frankel is a lawyer and former federal district court judge who has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is chairman emeritus of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR) and coauthor of Out of the Shadows of Night: The Struggle for International Human Rights.
Freedom of Religion, right of a person to form personal religious beliefs according to his or her own conscience and to give public expression to these beliefs in worship and teaching, restricted only by the requirements of public order. Religious liberty differs from toleration in that toleration presupposes preferential treatment of a particular creed by the state because it is an established church or, in some cases, is the predominant religion of the population.
The United States was the first, and for some time the only, nation to include the principle of religious liberty in its basic laws. The nations of antiquity permitted tolerance to individuals of minority religions, provided they took part in the public worship of the national gods.
Soon after Christianity became established as the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, heresy and heterodoxy became equivalent to treason. After the Reformation this condemnation of atypical religious beliefs was continued by nations with established reformed churches, and those who disagreed with the established church were punished.
The colonists immigrating to the New World brought with them the same doctrine of religious intolerance, and in many of the American colonies dissent from the established order of worship was regarded as sedition. The charter of Rhode Island, granted in 1663, is notable for being the first to include a declaration of the right to religious liberty. This doctrine gradually spread to the other colonies, and at the time of the American Revolution the principle of religious liberty was explicitly adopted in various state constitutions. The process culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, which in Article VI forbids the establishment of any religious test as a qualification for federal office, and in the 1st Amendment forbids the passage of laws “respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Large areas of the globe and beyond do not and legally cannot belong to any nation: most of the oceans and their resources, Antarctica, Earth’s atmosphere, outer space, and the Moon and other natural objects in space. These areas are known collectively as the global commons. The absence of political sovereignty for these areas means that international regulation is required to avoid conflict over them and to protect them from overuse, pollution, and other harm. International agreements for these areas are generally accepted as providing the legal framework for all those who conduct activities in them. See Aviation Law; Maritime Law; Freedom of the Seas.
International law has no fixed content. New threats that cannot be addressed or resolved by a single nation constantly call for new international responses. For example, recent international agreements aim to combat terrorism, the distribution of illicit drugs across national boundaries, and the spread of infectious disease. The development of new technologies, such as the Internet, can also lead to the creation of new international legal frameworks.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Terrorism, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or—equally important—the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals—that is, by those who are neither part of nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, or other governmental agencies of an established nation-state.
Terrorists attempt not only to sow panic but also to undermine confidence in the government and political leadership of their target country. Terrorism is therefore designed to have psychological effects that reach far beyond its impact on the immediate victims or object of an attack. Terrorists mean to frighten and thereby intimidate a wider audience, such as a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country and its political leadership, or the international community as a whole.
Terrorist groups generally have few members, limited firepower, and comparatively few organizational resources. For this reason they rely on dramatic, often spectacular, bloody and destructive acts of hit-and-run violence to attract attention to themselves and their cause. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence, and power they otherwise lack.
WHAT IS TERRORISM?
The word terrorism was first used in France to describe a new system of government adopted during the French Revolution (1789-1799). The regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror) was intended to promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its enemies and thereby purifying it. However, the oppression and violent excesses of the terreur transformed it into a feared instrument of the state. From that time on, terrorism has had a decidedly negative connotation. The word, however, did not gain wider popularity until the late 19th century when it was adopted by a group of Russian revolutionaries to describe their violent struggle against tsarist rule. Terrorism then assumed the more familiar antigovernment associations it has today.
Terrorism as a Political Act
Aldo Moro, Prisoner of the Red Brigades
Aldo Moro was a leading figure in Italy’s Christian Democrat Party and former prime minister. In March 1978 he was kidnapped by the leftist terrorist group the Red Brigades, who demanded the release of Red Brigade members from prison in return for Moro. In May Moro’s bullet-riddled body was found in an abandoned car.
Terrorism is by nature political because it involves the acquisition and use of power for the purpose of forcing others to submit, or agree, to terrorist demands. A terrorist attack, by generating publicity and focusing attention on the organization behind the attack, is designed to create this power. It also fosters an environment of fear and intimidation that the terrorists can manipulate. As a result terrorism’s success is best measured by its ability to attract attention to the terrorists and their cause and by the psychological impact it exerts over a nation and its citizenry. It differs in this respect from conventional warfare, where success is measured by the amount of military assets destroyed, the amount of territory seized, and the number of enemy dead.
Terrorists typically attempt to justify their use of violence by arguing that they have been excluded from, or frustrated by, the accepted processes of bringing about political change. They maintain that terrorism is the only option available to them, although their choice is a reluctant—even a regrettable—one. Whether someone agrees with this argument or not often depends on whether the person sympathizes with the terrorists’ cause or with the victims of the terrorist attack. The aphorism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” underscores how use of the label terrorism can be highly subjective depending upon one’s sympathies.
At the same time terrorist acts—including murder, kidnapping, bombing, and arson—have long been defined in both national and international law as crimes. Even in time of war, violence deliberately directed against innocent civilians is considered a crime. Similarly, violence that spreads beyond an acknowledged geographical theater of war to violate the territory of neutral or noncombatant states is also deemed a war crime.
Government Definitions of Terrorism
Legal statutes in most countries around the world regard terrorism as a crime. Yet there is considerable variation in how these laws define terrorism, even in countries whose laws derive from a common origin.
In the United Kingdom, for example, legislation titled Terrorist Act 2000 states that terrorism is “the use or threat of action . . . designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public . . . for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.” The legal system and code of law of the United Kingdom has influenced those of the United States, Canada, and Israel.
United States federal statute defines terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that . . . appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” This definition appears in United States Code, Title 18, Section 2331 (18 USC 2331).
Canada’s Anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-36) designates “terrorist activity” as “an act or omission . . . that is committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause and in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada . . . .”
Israeli law does not address terrorism specifically. But in the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance No. 33, it defines a terrorist organization as “a body of persons resorting in its activities to acts of violence calculated to cause death or injury to a person or to threats of such acts of violence.”
CAUSES OF TERRORISM
Terrorism has occurred throughout history for a variety of reasons. Its causes can be historical, cultural, political, social, psychological, economic, or religious—or any combination of these. Some countries have proven to be particularly susceptible to terrorism at certain times, as Italy and West Germany were during the 1970s. Terrorist violence escalated precipitously in those two countries for a decade before declining equally dramatically. Other countries, such as Canada and The Netherlands, have proven to be more resistant, and have experienced only a few isolated terrorist incidents.
In general, democratic countries have provided more fertile ground for terrorism because of the open nature of their societies. In such societies citizens have fundamental rights, civil liberties are legally protected, and government control and constant surveillance of its citizens and their activities is absent. By the same token, repressive societies, in which the government closely monitors citizens and restricts their speech and movement, have often provided more difficult environments for terrorists. But even police states have not been immune to terrorism, despite limiting civil liberties and forbidding free speech and rights of assembly. Examples include Russia under tsarist rule and the Communist-ruled Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as the People's Republic of China, Myanmar, and Laos.
In broad terms the causes that have commonly compelled people to engage in terrorism are grievances borne of political oppression, cultural domination, economic exploitation, ethnic discrimination, and religious persecution. Perceived inequities in the distribution of wealth and political power have led some terrorists to attempt to overthrow democratically elected governments. To achieve a fairer society, they would replace these governments with socialist or communist regimes. Left-wing terrorist groups of the 1960s and 1970s with such aims included Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Weather Underground (see Weathermen) in the United States. Other terrorists have sought to fulfill some mission that they believe to be divinely inspired or millennialist (related to the end of the world). (See Millennium). The Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995 that killed 12 people, falls into this category. Still other terrorists have embraced comparatively more defined and comprehensible goals such as the re-establishment of a national homeland (for example, Basque separatists in Spain) or the unification of a divided nation (Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland).
Finally, some terrorists are motivated by very specific issues, such as opposition to legalized abortion or nuclear energy, or the championing of environmental concerns (see Environment) and animal rights. They hope to pressure both the public and its representatives in government to enact legislation directly reflecting their particular concern. Militant animal rights activists, for example, have used violence against scientists and laboratory technicians in their campaign to halt medical experimentation involving animals. Radical environmentalists have sabotaged logging operations and the construction of power grids to protest the spoiling of natural wilderness areas. Extremists who oppose legalized abortion in the United States have attacked clinics and murdered doctors and other employees in hopes of denying women the right to abortion.
National governments have at times aided terrorists to further their own foreign policy goals. So-called state-sponsored terrorism, however, falls into a different category altogether. State-sponsored terrorism is a form of covert (secret) warfare, a means to wage war secretly through the use of terrorist surrogates (stand-ins) as hired guns. The U.S. Department of State designates countries as state sponsors of terrorism if they actively assist or aid terrorists, and also if they harbor past terrorists or refuse to renounce terrorism as an instrument of policy.
State sponsorship has proven invaluable to some terrorist organizations—by supplying arms, money, and a safe haven, among other things. In doing so, it has transformed ordinary groups, with otherwise limited capabilities, into more powerful and menacing opponents. State sponsorship can also place at terrorists’ disposal the resources of an established country’s diplomatic, military, and intelligence services. These services improve the training of terrorists and facilitate planning and operations. Finally, governments have paid terrorists handsomely for their services. They thereby turn weak and financially impoverished groups into formidable, well-endowed terrorist organizations with an ability to attract recruits and sustain their struggle.
The U.S. Department of State has designated seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. In the year 2000, it named Iran as the most active supporter of terrorism for aid to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Although the former Taliban government in Afghanistan sponsored al-Qaeda, the radical group led by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, the United States did not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government and thus did not list it as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Terrorism often targets innocent civilians in order to create an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, and insecurity. Some terrorists deliberately direct attacks against large numbers of ordinary citizens who simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
More selective terrorist attacks target diplomats and diplomatic facilities such as embassies and consulates; military personnel and military bases; business executives and corporate offices; and transportation vehicles and facilities, such as airlines and airports, trains and train stations, buses and bus terminals, and subways. Terrorist attacks on buildings or other inanimate targets often serve a symbolic purpose: They are intended more to draw attention to the terrorists and their cause than to destroy property or kill and injure persons, although death and destruction nonetheless often result.
Despite variations in the number of attacks from year to year, one feature of international terrorism has remained constant: The United States has been its most popular target. Since 1968 the United States has annually led the list of countries whose citizens and property were most frequently attacked by terrorists. Several factors can account for this phenomenon, in addition to America’s position as the soul remaining superpower and leader of the free world. These include the geographical scope and diversity of America’s overseas business interests, the number of Americans traveling or working abroad, and the many U.S. military bases around the world.
THE FUTURE OF TERRORISM
Terrorist Attacks in Madrid
Terrorist Attacks in Madrid
On March 11, 2004, terrorists launched a series of coordinated bombings on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain. It was the deadliest assault by terrorists against civilians in Spanish history, killing at least 191 people and injuring more than 1,500.
Terrorism has existed for at least 2,000 years and is likely to remain a fixture on political agendas, both domestic and international, for years to come. Terrorism provides a means by which the weak can confront much stronger opponents. It therefore has an enduring appeal to the alienated and the disenfranchised, the aggrieved and vengeful, the powerless and the would-be powerful. In addition, it is relatively inexpensive to conduct while offering a vast potential payoff: the ability to evoke fear and alarm and inflict pain and suffering in the hope of compelling agreement to demands made.
Terrorism, moreover, is evolving constantly to overcome governmental countermeasures designed to defeat it. Terrorism thus involves an ongoing search for new targets and unidentified vulnerabilities in its opponents. This quest also raises the possibility that terrorists may pursue unconventional means of attack, such as chemical, biological, or radiological (radioactivity-spreading) weapons, or nuclear weapons. Future terrorist tactics could include cyberterrorism (sabotage using computers to destroy computer networks or systems) or electronic warfare that targets critical infrastructure, such as communications and power facilities, or societies in general.
Throughout the world, terrorism reinvents itself in new and more dangerous forms. As older groups are defeated or exhausted, more radical and more violent successors often take their place. Although terrorism likely can never be completely eradicated, countering its threat requires continuing vigilance. The highly individual nature of terrorism’s causes, the diversity of its perpetrators, and the complexity of its fundamental characteristics present enormous challenges to those who must effectively counter this menace.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.