Terrorism or terrorisms? Some epistemological considerations

Terrorism or terrorisms? Some epistemological considerations

Données clés

Faculté	Faculté des sciences de la société
Département	Département de science politique et relations internationales
Professeur(s)	Rémi Baudoui (2011 - )
Enregistrement	2014, 2015
Cours	Terrorism and international relations

Lectures

• Terrorism or terrorisms? Some epistemological considerations
• National security and counter-terrorism: the example of Latin America
• Internationalisation of struggles and emergence of international terrorism
• International relations and the fight against international terrorism
• The United States and the New International Order
• Middle East Geopolitics
• September 11, 2001 ruptures
• Al-Qaida and the "geopolitics of radical terrorism"
• Combating terrorism and rebuilding transatlantic relations
• Arab Spring Against Terrorism: Issues and Perspectives
• Homegrown jihadism: How to prevent terrorist catastrophe?

This course offers an in-depth reflection on the place and evolution of terrorism in a historical perspective, focusing on the interrelations between this phenomenon and international relations. Through a diachronic approach, it is a question of exploring how violent action, in its multiple forms, influences, and is influenced by, global dynamics. The central hypothesis postulates that terrorism, as a violent political strategy, acts as a lever that alters the balance of international relations.

The main objective is to understand how terrorism transforms international relations. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the global security paradigm has radically changed. The George W. Bush administration, by declaring a "war on terror", extended the role of states beyond their borders, placing the fight against terrorism on a transnational scale. This development, catalyzed by the emergence of al-Qaeda, has ushered in a new era in the way international relations and global security are conceived.

The course focuses on the historical evolution of terrorism and examines how these transformations impact the field of international relations. It highlights the ruptures between the different periods: the terrorism of the 1960s differs fundamentally from that of the 2000s, which itself diverges from contemporary terrorism, marked by transnational actors and digital issues. This evolution reflects structural changes within the nation-state and the international system.

In addition, the major powers have made the fight against terrorism a strategic priority, often beyond the limits of their national borders, seeking to eradicate threats at their source. This extraterritorial dimension of the fight against terrorism illustrates a redefinition of the relationship between national sovereignty and global security.

One of the key reflections of this course concerns the plural of the term: should we speak of "terrorism" or "terrorism"? By opting for the plural, we recognize the diversity and complexity of the forms of political violence. This diversity implies a detailed analysis of the motivations, contexts and strategies specific to each form of terrorism. How do these forms evolve in interaction with the structures of the nation-state? This question is a central axis of our analysis.

Finally, the course questions the issues of definition and qualification. The term "terrorism" carries a strongly negative connotation, as opposed to the word "resistance", which is often associated with political and moral legitimacy. During the Second World War, resistance fighters fought against a power considered illegitimate, while German forces labelled them terrorists, highlighting their use of violence to disrupt the established order. These divergences illustrate the power of words: they can both devalue and legitimize an action.

This course aims to analyze not only the evolution of terrorist practices, but also the discursive and political issues associated with their definition. This approach provides a better understanding of how terrorism, in its many forms and contexts, is redefining the contours of contemporary international relations.

Languages

Deutsch

Español Français Italiano

A problem of definition

The question of the definition of terrorism is a central challenge, both in public discourse and in scientific work. The word itself, omnipresent in political and media debates, remains marked by a conceptual imprecision that limits its analytical usefulness. Several thinkers have highlighted this difficulty. Alain Joxe considers terrorism to be a "catch-all concept", used indiscriminately to designate various realities. Régis Debray even describes it as a "garbage concept", underlining its often unrigorous use. Ignacio Ramonet, for his part, insists on the imprecise nature of the word, which complicates any attempt at coherent scientific analysis.

These observations reveal a fundamental tension in the use of this term. It is less a question of describing an objective reality than of qualifying acts or groups according to an often subjective reading grid. This semantic vagueness poses a major epistemological problem: how can we analyze a phenomenon that escapes a clear and stable definition?

In any scientific approach, it is essential to trace the origin and history of the concepts used. To understand a term is to understand the conditions of its emergence and the contexts in which it is used. Raymond Aron, on the subject of the word "revolution", remarked that quarrels over words, although sometimes apparently sterile, often reveal the real stakes of a debate. Applied to terrorism, this imperative invites us to examine not only the phenomenon itself, but also the discourses that qualify it and the uses of the word over time. This implies acknowledging that the violence that is now described as terrorist existed long before the term was coined. Actions that are currently referred to as terrorist were not necessarily perceived as such in their time, which illustrates the importance of contextualizing the use of this word.

The main obstacle lies in the lack of rigorous conceptualization of the term "terrorism". Unlike concepts such as the "nation-state", which have been the subject of extensive intellectual work to establish its contours, terrorism remains a vague term, often used emotionally and subjectively. This word, far from being a scientific concept, is more akin to a personal assessment. To say "the weather is fine today" expresses a sensation, a subjective judgment. Similarly, the use of the word "terrorism" often reflects impressions or emotions, rather than rigorous analysis.

This lack of conceptualization poses a problem that is all the more complex because terrorism is a political phenomenon deeply rooted in history and power relations. The term, in itself, is not neutral. It is often used to stigmatize opponents or discredit political actions. During the Second World War, for example, French resistance fighters, who were fighting against the German occupation, were labelled terrorists by the Nazi forces, but resistance fighters by those who supported their cause. These contradictory designations clearly show that the use of the word depends on ideological perspectives and power relations.

The problem of defining terrorism is therefore not limited to an academic question. It reflects deep political and social issues. By calling an act "terrorist", it is delegitimized, it is denied any political or moral legitimacy. This discursive dimension of terrorism, which is often ignored, is nevertheless essential to understand why it is so difficult to establish a consensual definition.

To go beyond simplifications, it is necessary to place the word "terrorism" in its historical and political context. This work involves examining the conditions of its emergence, the transformations of its use and the biases it conveys. It is only by adopting a critical and reflective approach that one can hope to go beyond the current limits of its conceptualization. Terrorism, as a term and as a phenomenon, is thus at the crossroads of political discourse, social constructions and scientific analyses. Working to clarify its definition also means questioning the power relations that underlie its use and the contexts in which it is mobilized.

Terrorism is as old as humanity

Portrait of Maximilien de Robespierre, painted by Adélaïde Labille-Guiard in 1791.

The idea of terrorism, although often perceived as a contemporary phenomenon, dates back to much earlier times, and its very essence seems to be linked to a universal dynamic of using fear as an instrument of power and control. In Livy's Roman History, Berchorius, a Benedictine monk, defines the Latin term "terrere", meaning "to make tremble". This etymology immediately places the concept in an emotional and sensory dimension. Producing a tremor, in this context, involves arousing fear, upsetting the foundations, and causing a psychological or social commotion.

Any act qualified as terrorist aims to produce a phenomenon of destabilization, to upset the established frames of reference. September 11, 2001 is a perfect illustration of this dynamic. These attacks have not only caused material destruction; They plunged millions of people into a state of incomprehension of what they were experiencing, amplifying the emotional and societal impact of the event. This moment of "terrere" not only shook individuals, but also redefined security and political priorities on a global scale.

The concept of "tremor" in terrorism is based on a particular intensity which, at a given moment, crystallizes latent tensions and existing problems. This tremor is not limited to the emotional; it also acts on the socio-political framework. Terrorist acts are often intended to expose flaws in a system or force a disproportionate response from the authorities, which accentuates their impact. The question of this tremor is also found in the history of revolutionary terror, an emblematic phenomenon of the late eighteenth century.

During the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre gave an explicit justification for the use of terror in a revolutionary context. In his famous speech to the Convention on 5 February 1794, he stated:

"The Terror is nothing other than prompt and severe, inflexible justice. It is an emanation of virtue."

This statement places terror as a legitimate tool to protect the fledgling Republic from its enemies, especially royalists perceived as an existential threat. Under Robespierre's leadership, the revolutionary tribunals were set up to consolidate this project, using systematic violence to impose a political vision. This institutionalized use of terror, although legitimized by the urgency of the time, prefigures modern forms of state terrorism, where violence is used to maintain an ideological or political order.

The parallel with Pol Pot in Cambodia illustrates another facet of revolutionary terrorism. Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, took this logic to the extreme, engaging a regime of terror to preserve an idealized revolutionary purity. Where Robespierre saw terror as a temporary tool to save the nation, Pol Pot plunged his country into a devastating spiral of violence, seeking to erase any real or perceived opposition. This "madness", motivated by a dogmatic vision of revolution, shows how the idea of terrorism can become an end in itself when it loses all anchoring in rational or achievable objectives.

Thus, terrorism, in its most fundamental dimension, is intimately linked to the history of humanity and its ability to exploit fear to achieve political or ideological objectives. Although it takes different forms depending on the era, the underlying mechanism remains the same: to destabilize, to make people tremble, and to impose a transformation through violence. This universal dynamic explains why terrorism crosses the centuries while adapting to the historical and cultural contexts that shape it.

However, this analysis should not obscure the diversity of motivations and justifications underlying these acts. Terrorism is not a one-dimensional phenomenon: it is deeply rooted in the tensions between power, resistance and ideology, and its study requires taking into account the complexity of its manifestations throughout history.

From now on, the word terror is declined

Portrait of Immanuel Kant.

The word "terrorism" has its roots in the notion of terror. It embodies the voluntary act of creating a reign of fear, of provoking a deep commotion capable of shaking a building, a system or a society. This dynamic is based on the notion of "earth", which evokes both fear and upheaval. This reflection, although rooted in political violence, is also integrated into philosophical frameworks. Immanuel Kant, in his hedonistic approach to the history of humanity, contrasts two major conceptions: the quest for happiness, or "eudemonism", and what he calls the "terrorist conception" of history, where terror becomes a driver of change and upheaval.

In his 1798 work, Kant writes:

"To oppose the eudaimonic conception of the history of humanity (happiness) to the terrorist conception of the history of humanity."

This opposition illustrates a fundamental conflict between the search for harmonious progress and the violent dynamics that can mark the evolution of humanity. In his project of "perpetual peace", Kant tries to conceptualize a world where terror, as a political or historical tool, would be dissolved. This utopian ambition is based on the idea that true peace cannot be established as long as forces exploiting fear remain.

The use of the term "terrorist" as an adjective began to spread at this time. As early as 1798, in the great powers such as England, Germany and the Hispanic world, and in France with the Académie française, the word was used to designate what was then called the "system of terror". This terminology refers directly to the violence carried out during the French revolutionary period, particularly under the direction of Robespierre and the revolutionary tribunals. It places the notion of terror in a political and institutionalized framework.

This linguistic and conceptual evolution of the word "terrorism" reveals a profoundly ambivalent dimension. Karl Marx, in his writings, captures this duality by identifying two main forms of terror: on the one hand, revolutionary action, which seeks to transform or destroy an established order, and, on the other hand, state repression, directed against revolutionary or dissenting forces. These two dimensions are opposed while being interdependent. For Marx, terror becomes a two-sided mechanism, where one feeds the other in a cycle of violence.

This ambivalence gives the word "terrorism" an intrinsically contradictory nature, close to the image of Janus, the Roman god with two faces. On the one hand, it represents the destruction and upheaval wrought by the revolutionaries; on the other, it embodies state repression aimed at maintaining or restoring order. This duality makes it difficult to establish a consensus around the very definition of the word. "Terrorism" thus becomes a mirror of the tensions and power struggles that run through societies, oscillating between subversion and control.

This historical and conceptual evolution shows that the word "terrorism", although rooted in history, remains marked by a plasticity that reflects contexts and ideologies. It is not only a descriptive tool: it is also a discursive weapon, used to legitimize or delegitimize actions according to the balance of power. To understand this declination of terror is to recognize that "terrorism" is not an unequivocal phenomenon, but a prism through which power, resistance and ideology are intertwined.

The study of "terrorism" through the prism of terror, and its historical evolution, thus shows that it is as much a social and political construction as it is an observable phenomenon. It is in this tension between conceptualization and instrumentalization that all the complexity of his analysis lies.

Special case of Islam

The term "terrorism", as it is understood today, is absent from classical Arabic and, by extension, from the lexical foundations of Islam. This absence reveals a significant conceptual divergence: Islam, in its initial development, built its own vocabulary around war, conflict and struggle, but without integrating a notion equivalent to modern terrorism. This linguistic and conceptual gap invites us to explore the historical and cultural specificities of the relationship between Islam and political violence.

Islam, from its origins in the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century, has been structured around dynamics of combat and conquest. These struggles, which were essential to the expansion of the Muslim faith, led to the emergence of a lexicon rich in terms describing various forms of conflict:

• Feda' refers to the fight for a sacred cause, often perceived as an act of dedication or sacrifice.
• Qiçâs [قصاص] refers to the law of retaliation, a principle of retributive justice seeking to balance the wrong by an equivalent punishment.
• Gitâl refers to the deadly fighting, underlining the lethal dimension of the conflict.
• Harb refers to war in a general way, without any particular religious connotation.
• Jihâd' [جهاد], a central and complex term, has a triple meaning:
  • The individual effort to surpass oneself.
  • Spiritual ascent, oriented towards an ideal of moral purity.
  • The legitimate warrior enterprise, often interpreted in the context of the defense of the faith.

These terms, deeply rooted in the founding texts of Islam, structure a vision of combat and conflict that is part of a legal and spiritual framework. However, they do not cover the modern concept of terrorism, which is based on different dynamics: the deliberate intention to sow fear and provoke political or social upheaval through acts of targeted violence.

Radical Islam, as it developed in the twentieth century, sought to reinterpret and update certain concepts to legitimize the use of physical violence. Among these notions, "jihad" played a central role. In this context, "jihad" is diverted from its spiritual and personal meanings to focus on its warlike meaning. This interpretation puts forward the idea of a legitimate armed struggle against the enemies of Islam, whether internal (apostates or corrupt governments) or external (Western powers perceived as colonizing or oppressive).

At the same time, other terms are used to describe extreme forms of violence:

• Ghuluw, which means exaggeration or 'excess, is used to refer to extreme or disproportionate violence.
• Irhab, a modern term meaning "terrorism", has become established in the contemporary Arabic vocabulary. It is often associated with other notions such as tatarruf' ("extremism") or ightiyâl ("assassination"), marking a distinction with the classical terms.

This lexical evolution reflects the adaptation of Muslim societies to contemporary issues. The appearance of a word for terrorism shows that this concept, although not existing in classical Arabic, has been integrated to respond to a modern reality. This shift testifies to the way in which radical currents reinterpret religious texts and cultural frameworks to justify their actions, while inscribing the latter in a supposedly legitimate rhetoric.

The original absence of the concept of terrorism in classical Arabic does not mean that Muslim societies or Islam as a religion have not known or theorized violence. Rather, it highlights a fundamental difference in the way cultures and civilizations conceptualize and categorize acts of violence. Where classical Islam favoured a vocabulary structured around legitimate combat, the term "terrorism" is based on a more contemporary dynamic, linked to issues of political destabilisation and manipulation by fear.

This distinction is important for understanding the current discourses on Islamic terrorism. Modern actors who justify their violent actions in the name of radical Islam are part of a tension between a codified religious tradition and modern ideological necessities. By mobilizing terms such as "jihad" or "ghuluw", they seek to legitimize their actions by linking them to a historical tradition, while borrowing elements from contemporary vocabulary, such as "irhab", to respond to global issues.

The case of Islam thus shows that terrorism, as it is perceived today, is not universal in its conceptualization. It is the product of an encounter between specific traditions and modern dynamics. Understanding this interaction is essential for analyzing the discourses and practices related to contemporary Islamic terrorism, while avoiding oversimplifications and overgeneralizations.

Modern definitions of the word terrorism

Boris Viktorovitch Savinkov.

The semantic evolution of the word "terrorism" reflects a profound transformation in the perceptions and uses of this term, moving from a certain neutrality, even positivity, to an exclusively negative connotation. Until the beginning of the twentieth century, the word retained a certain ambivalence, especially in the context of anarchist movements in Russia. Boris Viktorovich Savinkov, a major figure in these movements, proclaimed himself a "terrorist". From this point of view, the term referred to a politically motivated act of violence, perceived as legitimate by those who claimed it. This positive use of the word implied that the terrorist act, although violent, served a cause deemed just and necessary.

However, from the 1930s onwards, this positive dimension gradually disappeared to give way to an exclusively pejorative meaning. "Terrorism" becomes a stigmatizing term, used to delegitimize violence by non-state actors or resistance movements. In this context, accusing an individual or a group of terrorism amounts to denying any legitimacy to their struggle or their demands. The use of the word then marks a fundamental break: the terrorist is perceived as someone who exercises violence without a clear or legitimate political project, reducing his acts to simple manifestations of terror.

This transformation is reflected in political discourses and repressive practices. Anyone who, in the nineteenth century, could claim to be a "terrorist" to emphasize his revolutionary commitment, loses this possibility in the twentieth century. The term becomes a rhetorical tool to qualify the internal or external enemy, depriving it of any legal or moral status. During the German occupation, for example, French resistance fighters were labelled "terrorists" by the Nazi authorities. This demeaning qualification denied them any protective legal framework, placing them outside the laws and international conventions. As "unlawful combatants", they faced brutal repression, often devoid of any respect for human rights.

The modern use of the word "terrorism" goes beyond the simple descriptive field to become an all-encompassing discourse, a rhetorical weapon in the service of power. Labeling an act or group as "terrorist" not only delegitimizes their cause, but also justifies extreme repressive measures. Thus, the violence exercised by the State against these actors is presented as a necessity to guarantee national security. In this context, the use of controversial methods, such as torture, is justified by the perceived need to protect the state and its citizens.

The word "terrorism" thus becomes a discursive tool that serves to deny any legitimacy to the actors of violence, reducing them to agents of chaos and terror. This construction makes it possible to justify repressive actions that, in other contexts, might be considered morally or legally unacceptable. The use of the word then goes beyond the simple framework of description to be part of a dynamic of control and power. The "terrorist", as a constructed figure, becomes an absolute enemy, outside the law and norms, against whom all actions, even the most extreme, can be legitimized.

This evolution of the term highlights its role in power relations and strategies of domination. Far from being a simple tool of designation, the word "terrorism" participates in a rhetoric aimed at controlling narratives, delegitimizing opposition and strengthening state authority. This dynamic explains why "terrorism" is today as much a social and political construct as it is an observable phenomenon. Working to understand its modern definitions implies deconstructing the uses that are made of them and revealing the power relations they underly.

Need to build another vocabulary for the actors of violence

Fichier:Espagne.png War Maquis

Los maquis de la sierra de Jaén.

The qualification of "terrorist" is a powerful rhetorical weapon, but also a semantic burden for individuals and groups engaged in violent actions. This word, marked by a strongly pejorative connotation, imposes a moral and ideological distance between those who use it and those who are accused of it. In combat narratives, this distance pushes those described as terrorists to develop another vocabulary to legitimize their actions and redefine their place in history. Thus, an individual or group accused of terrorism must free itself from this label by adopting terms that enhance their cause and erase the associated stigma.

A significant example is found in the testimonies of the "maquis" of the Sierra de Jaén, in Spain. These anti-Franco resistance fighters, often described as terrorists by the Franco regime, were firmly opposed to this designation. They said: "We were called terrorists". This expression shows a rejection of the imposed qualification and a desire to dissociate itself from the negative image associated with this term. This rejection implies the construction of an alternative discourse, where violent actions are recontextualized as acts of legitimate resistance.

The term "guerrillas" emerged in this context of lexical reappropriation. Used mainly to designate irregular fighters in Latin America from the 1970s onwards, it carries a connotation of the struggle for freedom or self-determination, detached from the stigmata of terrorism. In Italy, the Red Brigades, in 1973, adopted the term "resistant", seeking to draw a parallel with the European resistance fighters of the Second World War. This choice of terminology aims to inscribe their struggle in a legitimate tradition of struggle against oppression, thus circumventing the negative connotations associated with the word "terrorist".

This problem goes beyond the single word "terrorism" and extends to other terms which, over time, have been overloaded with negative or restrictive meanings, often out of step with their historical origin. For example, the word "fundamentalism" has its roots in a 19th-century Protestant heresy, but today it is widely used to refer to religious movements perceived as retrograde or extremist, erasing the diversity of its historical meanings.

Similarly, the word "fundamentalism" appeared in eighteenth-century Catholic Spain to designate a current defending the entirety of the Christian faith in the face of modernist influences. Today, the term is mainly associated with conservative and radical movements, thus losing its original connection to a specific theological context. "Fanaticism", on the other hand, derives from the "fanum", the sacred place of the oracle in ancient Rome, but has evolved to become a word designating a passion or belief deemed excessive and irrational.

These words share a common characteristic: they are "overdetermined", that is, they are charged with an ideological or emotional connotation that masks their history and complexity. This process of overdetermination reflects a tendency to simplify and essentialize discourses on violence and its actors, making it difficult to nuance an analysis of the phenomena they designate.

The word "terrorism," like these other terms, illustrates how the history of a word can be overshadowed by its contemporary usage. The example of fundamentalism is particularly enlightening. This term, originally rooted in a Protestant theological dispute, is now used to refer to religious movements perceived as archaic, authoritarian, or even dangerous. This semantic shift shows how a word can lose its historical anchorage to become an ideological tool, intended to stigmatize groups or behaviors.

This development raises the need to reflect on how we use language to talk about violence and its actors. The words we use are never neutral: they carry within them judgments, values and power relations. Describing a group as terrorist, fanatic, or fundamentalist is not just describing a phenomenon; it is situated in a moral and political framework that influences the way in which it is perceived and treated.

Faced with these challenges, it becomes essential to build an alternative vocabulary to talk about the actors of violence, a language that makes it possible to overcome the negative and ideologically charged connotations of existing terms. This vocabulary should strive to reflect the complexity of the motivations and historical contexts of violent groups, while avoiding simplifications that reduce their action to a single and demeaning essence.

The history of the word "terrorism" illustrates this necessity. By acknowledging its origins, transformations, and contemporary uses, it becomes possible to approach the term in a more critical and reflective way. This approach could be extended to other words marked by ideological connotations, thus renewing the discourse on violence and its actors. Working on such a language also means working on the way in which we understand and engage the relations of power and resistance in the contemporary world.

How to see more clearly

Terrorism, as a concept, seems to be a form of "unthought" in the social sciences. This term designates an object which, although identifiable in fact, escapes a clear and rigorous conceptualization. An unthought, unlike a thought, reflects a gap in the construction of a scientific object: it underlines the inability, voluntary or involuntary, of an academic field to grasp or integrate a phenomenon into its theoretical framework.

The social sciences are structured around categories that make it possible to think, analyze and explain social phenomena. However, some objects, such as terrorism, remain unthought of, that is to say that they remain on the margins of established epistemological frameworks. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that terrorism has not been integrated into the social sciences as a noble or legitimate object to be studied. As a result, it has long been excluded from academic debates and research, marking what could be described as "scientific ostracism".

This exclusion of terrorism is particularly notable in three major traditions of the social sciences: structuralist history, sociology and polemology. These disciplines, although dedicated to the analysis of social structures, the dynamics of violence and conflicts, have not integrated terrorism into their analytical frameworks.

In the 1930s and 1950s, structuralist history focused on major power structures, economic and social transformations, and conflicts between nation-states. This movement, influenced by thinkers such as Fernand Braudel, favoured global and long-term approaches, leaving little room for the study of phenomena deemed marginal or destabilizing, such as terrorism. This was perceived as an isolated and sporadic action, and was not part of the concerns of historians of the time.

Sociology, for its part, has long been limited to the question of violence in general, without taking a specific interest in terrorism. Sociologists such as Émile Durkheim and Max Weber have addressed forms of violence linked to social or economic dynamics, but terrorism, as a political and strategic phenomenon, has remained absent from their analyses. Even in more recent work on violence, the issue of terrorism has not been conceptualized autonomously, often being reduced to a byproduct of broader conflicts.

The most paradoxical case is perhaps that of polemology, a discipline dedicated to the study of war and conflict. Founded by Gaston Bouthoul, polemology aimed to produce a science of war and violence. However, it has focused almost exclusively on wars between nation-states, neglecting forms of non-state violence, such as terrorism. This omission reflects a broader difficulty in conceiving forms of asymmetrical and irregular violence within a structured theoretical framework.

Several factors explain this exclusion of terrorism in the social sciences:

1. The difficulty of conceptualization: Terrorism, by its fragmented nature and its anchoring in multiple contexts, escapes traditional analytical frameworks. It is neither an open conflict between states, nor a simple manifestation of social violence, but a hybrid phenomenon mixing political strategy, symbolism and coercion.
2. Ideological weight: The study of terrorism is often marked by ideological biases, making a neutral and scientific approach difficult. The word itself, laden with negative connotations, complicates its conceptualization as an object of study.
3. Lack of academic legitimacy: For a long time, terrorism was not perceived as a "noble" subject by researchers, due to its morally controversial dimension and its association with acts of violence deemed illegitimate.
4. The domination of state frameworks': The social sciences, especially history and sociology, have long privileged the structures and dynamics of nation-states, neglecting non-state phenomena, such as terrorism.

Terrorism is nevertheless a central phenomenon in contemporary international relations, as well as a powerful lever in social and political dynamics. It is therefore imperative to overcome this lack of thought in order to make it a scientific object in its own right. This involves going beyond the classical frameworks of the social sciences and adopting an interdisciplinary approach, integrating historical, sociological, anthropological and philosophical perspectives.

The integration of terrorism into the social sciences also requires a critical reflection on existing conceptual tools. Traditional categories, designed to analyze conflicts or more institutionalized social dynamics, must be adapted to take into account the hybrid, asymmetrical, and symbolic nature of terrorism. This conceptualization work is essential to go beyond current simplifications and allow a rigorous and nuanced analysis of this complex phenomenon.

Ultimately, thinking about terrorism in the social sciences means not only broadening epistemological frameworks, but also recognizing the limits of current approaches. This approach, while demanding, is essential to shed light on the dynamics of violence in a world increasingly marked by asymmetric conflicts and forms of unconventional violence.

The question of terrorism is reinterpreted by the sciences according to the analytical eye, but has never been looked at as such.

The historian is part of the history of human violence, the political scientist belongs exclusively to the political space, the philosopher engages in a reflection on the use of good and evil leading to a moral question versus radical evil, just as Hannah Arendt, the psychologist and the psychoanalyst situate terrorism on the side of impulses referring to a psychic process and the impact of evil in human nature. For the anthropologist it refers to the notion of violence and the sacred as well as to the sacrificial rite of primitive societies, for the jurist it refers to the nature of the crimes instituted in fact.

Infinite definitions

The concept of terrorism escapes a consensual definition, due to its multifaceted nature and the absence of a social field structured around this issue. The multiple attempts to define terrorism reveal a plurality of approaches and perspectives, which reflect ideological biases, institutional needs and historical contexts. This lack of consensus does not mean an absence of analysis; on the contrary, it opens the way to an infinite number of definitions, based on various criteria. These definitions are mainly based on two major approaches: intentionality and the impact of acts.

The intentional approach (upstream)

The first approach is based on the idea that terrorism can be defined by the intention behind the act. In this context, what characterizes a terrorist act is not only the violence exerted, but the precise and deliberate objective that underlies that action. This intentionality presupposes premeditation: the terrorist act is thought of as a means to an end, politically, ideologically, or religiously. For example, a bombing targeting civilians may be called terrorist not because of its effects, but because of the purpose it pursues: to cause fear to advance a specific cause.

This approach, which is one of the first to emerge in academic and policy debates, emphasizes planning and the meaning attributed to violent acts. However, it raises methodological and epistemological problems. How can we establish with certainty the intention of an actor? As intentions are often concealed or manipulated by discourse, this approach risks being based on subjective or biased interpretations. It can also be instrumentalized to delegitimize certain political struggles by insisting on an alleged terrorist intent, without concrete evidence.

The impact approach

The second approach, on the other hand, focuses on the results produced by violent acts, rather than on their motivations. Here, terrorism is defined by its effectiveness and its impact on the targeted societies or institutions. This framework technicalizes the definition, setting aside political or ideological intentions to focus on the objective consequences of actions: generalized fear, the destabilization of institutions or the pressure exerted on governments.

This approach is often used in contexts of depoliticization, where terrorism is studied as a technical or strategic phenomenon. It makes it possible to circumvent ideological debates on the legitimacy of causes and to focus on the dynamics of violence itself. However, it also raises problems. By ignoring intentions, it risks reducing terrorism to a mere tool, without taking into account the complexity of the human and political motivations that accompany it. It can also lead to amalgamation: any violence that produces a significant impact could then be qualified as terrorist, even if it was not designed as such.

An infinite palette of definitions

These two approaches, intentionality and impact, show how difficult it is to define terrorism as a concept. The diversity of intentions, contexts and forms of violent actions makes the existence of plural definitions inevitable. Each attempt at a definition reflects a certain perspective, influenced by cultural, ideological or institutional frameworks. Thus, what is considered terrorism in one context may be perceived differently in another, depending on the interests and narratives at stake.

This plurality of definitions, although problematic in establishing a consensus, is also indicative of the complexity of the phenomenon. It emphasizes that terrorism cannot be reduced to a single or universal essence. It is the product of specific historical contexts, power relations, and subjective perceptions. Therefore, any attempt at a definition must take into account this richness and variability, while striving to avoid simplifications or biases.

To clarify the issues surrounding terrorism, it is essential to go beyond the opposition between intentionality and impact, and to adopt an interdisciplinary and contextual approach. The infinite definitions of terrorism should not be seen as an obstacle, but as an opportunity to enrich our understanding of the phenomenon. This involves acknowledging the subjectivity inherent in each definition, while seeking to develop analytical frameworks capable of integrating this complexity.

Ultimately, terrorism, as an object of study, reflects the tensions between the social sciences and political realities. It reveals both the challenges of conceptualization and the ethical and political issues related to the use of words. Thinking about terrorism also means thinking about our own limits as analysts, researchers or citizens confronted with a phenomenon that defies established categories.

On the upstream side: intentionality in terrorism

Jean Baudrillard, Raoul Vaneigem, Raymond Aron and Annie Kriegel

Reflection on terrorism through the prism of intentionality is based on the idea that the terrorist act is defined above all by its motivations and objectives. This approach focuses on analyzing the thought that precedes the violent action, seeking to understand the intention behind the act. The contributions of thinkers such as Jean Baudrillard, Raoul Vaneigem, Raymond Aron, and Annie Kriegel illustrate the richness and diversity of attempts to define this intentional dimension of terrorism.

Baudrillard and systematic terror

For Jean Baudrillard, terror is not limited to isolated acts or individual intentions. It represents the culmination of a global system in which death loses its unpredictable and accidental character to become an organized, rationalized and systematic reality. He writes:

"Terror is the final stage of the system that eliminates accidental death and replaces it with systematic and organized death."

This reflection goes beyond a classic analysis of terrorism in terms of intentionality or impact. Baudrillard inscribes terror in a systemic logic, linking it to the deep dynamics of modernity. In his analysis, modernity is characterized by a growing organization of societies, where everything, including violence and death, is structured according to principles of rationality. Terror, far from being a simple phenomenon of subversion, then becomes an emanation of this hyper-organized system. It responds to a logic of control, where even death ceases to be a natural or random event to become a tool of power.

Baudrillard sees in this systematization of death an implicit critique of modernity. In a world where accidents and the unexpected are gradually eliminated by technology and institutional structures, terror reintroduces the shock element, but within a perfectly organized framework. The terrorist act, while seemingly chaotic, is in fact deeply thought out and executed with calculated precision. It thus reflects the same rational logic that characterizes modern systems, but subverts their objectives.

In this context, terror becomes a distorting mirror of modernity itself. It reproduces its mechanisms of organization and systematization, while turning them against it. The terrorist attack, for example, uses the tools and infrastructure of the modern world – planes, media, networks – to produce a global destabilizing effect. Systematic terror, as Baudrillard describes it, is thus both a product and a critique of modernity, revealing its flaws and contradictions.

Baudrillard's thinking broadens to include not only terrorism, but also forms of violence exercised by states and institutions. In this context, terror is not the monopoly of non-state actors. Modern wars, political purges, and even certain forms of governance are part of this logic of systematic death. What distinguishes these forms of violence is their inclusion in an institutional framework that gives them an apparent legitimacy.

Thus, the traditional distinction between terrorism and state violence loses its relevance in Baudrillard's analysis. Both are based on the same logic: that of the instrumentalization of death for the purposes of control and domination. Terror, whether exercised by groups or states, is always the product of a system that organizes and rationalizes violence.

Baudrillard suggests that terror is also a response to a world saturated with order and control. In a society where everything is anticipated, planned and controlled, the terrorist act reintroduces a form of the unexpected, but in a paradoxically organized form. This duality – organization and chaos – characterizes systematic terror. It is not only a reaction against the established order, but also a way of reproducing and exploiting the logics of this order in order to subvert them.

Baudrillard's reflection on systematic terror goes beyond the framework of the traditional analysis of terrorism. It invites us to rethink the place of violence in modern societies, considering it not as a dysfunction, but as a product inherent to their functioning. Terror, according to Baudrillard, is the ultimate expression of a world in which death itself has become a rational, organized, and systematic tool, thus revealing the profound contradictions of modernity.

Vaneigem and the ideologization of terrorism

aoul Vaneigem offers a radically different analysis of terrorism, which he politicizes and ideologizes by breaking with conventional perspectives. According to him, terrorism cannot be reduced to an isolated, intentional act perpetrated by dissident individuals or groups. On the contrary, he sees terrorism as the product of a state and commercial system deeply rooted in the logic of domination. In his work, he writes:

"The rules of terrorism are imposed by the cops, the judges, the bosses, the bosses, the defenders of the commodity and its system of death, who impose them and multiply their presentation."

For Vaneigem, terrorism is not an anomaly or a phenomenon external to systems of power. On the contrary, it is a direct consequence of the structural violence exercised by the state and capitalism. These institutions, according to him, impose logics of control and exploitation which, by their very nature, generate violent responses. Terrorism, far from being marginal or foreign, is integrated into these structures, both in its manifestations and in the responses it provokes.

This reading is based on a fundamental critique of systems of power. The state, corporations and social institutions, by perpetuating inequalities and forms of coercion, create a pervasive climate of violence. Vaneigem sees terrorism as an inevitable consequence of this institutionalized violence, which legitimizes the use of force to maintain their domination. Thus, terrorist acts, while appearing as brutal ruptures, are in reality expressions of the same system they seem to be fighting.

From Vaneigem's perspective, terrorism cannot be dissociated from capitalism, which he accuses of reducing individuals to economic objects subject to the imperatives of the market. This commodification of life, which he describes as a "system of death," normalizes violence and inscribes it in social relations. The "cops, judges, bosses, bosses," whom he mentions in his critique, are the guarantors of this structural violence, by imposing the rules of a system that oppresses and exploits.

Terrorism, in this context, is both a symptom and a tool. As a symptom, it reflects the tensions and contradictions of a system that produces violence in order to maintain itself. As a tool, it is used by dominant institutions to strengthen their power, justifying repressive policies under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Vaneigem thus denounces the hypocrisy of states and economic elites, who condemn terrorism while perpetuating the conditions that make it possible.

Vaneigem's analysis expands beyond terrorism to encompass a global critique of systems of power. It refuses to consider terrorist acts as isolated or irrational events, preferring to situate them in a historical and structural context. According to him, terrorist violence is not a deviation from modernity, but a logical consequence of the mechanisms that underlie contemporary social and economic relations.

This approach transforms the way we look at terrorism. Where conventional analyses focus on individual motivations or the impacts of acts, Vaneigem insists on the systemic conditions that make them possible. Terrorism thus becomes a revelation of the violence hidden or normalized by institutions, exposing the contradictions of a social order based on oppression.

By identifying terrorism as an emanation of systems of domination, Vaneigem redefines the relationship between violence and power. Terrorism is no longer simply a reaction against the established order: it is also a reproduction of the violent logics that structure this order. This perspective underscores the interdependence between terrorist acts and the institutions they appear to combat. By denouncing this relationship, Vaneigem invites us to rethink the fight against terrorism, not as a war against specific individuals or groups, but as a questioning of the power structures that give rise to it.

Vaneigem's vision is decidedly subversive, as it shifts the blame for terrorism from non-state actors to dominant institutions. This polemical reading invites us to reconsider official discourses on violence, by confronting them with the systemic responsibilities of states and economic elites. For Vaneigem, understanding terrorism requires going beyond the traditional frameworks of intentional or technical analysis to address the deep roots of violence in social and political structures.

Vaneigem's ideologization of terrorism is not limited to a critique of the violent acts themselves, but questions the foundations of a system that produces, legitimizes and instrumentalizes violence for the purposes of control. This reflection, although extreme in its approach, offers a provocative light on the relations between power, violence and society.

Aron and the elimination of the state as a terrorist actor

Raymond Aron proposes a definition of terrorism that is distinguished by its technical and descriptive approach, emphasizing the intentional and strategic characteristics of violent acts. It defines terrorism as:

"A violent action generally undertaken by an individual or a small non-state group, almost always with a political purpose, against indiscriminate targets, with limited means and whose particularity is to produce a climate of terror where the psychological effects are out of proportion to the physical results that result from such an act."

This definition focuses on several elements Keywords: the non-state origin of the perpetrators, the underlying political intent, the indiscriminate nature of the targets, and above all the psychological impact disproportionate to the material damage caused. Aron insists on the asymmetry of the means used and on the capacity of these acts to sow fear disproportionate to the concrete results obtained.

One of the notable features of Aron's definition is its explicit exclusion from state terrorism. He considers that terrorism should be attributed exclusively to non-state actors, which excludes phenomena such as the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution or the Stalinist purges in the Soviet Union from his field of analysis. This position, although consistent with its intentionalist and strategic definition, is also controversial. Indeed, many historical examples show that states have used terror as a tool of governance or political repression.

For example, the Reign of Terror, under Robespierre, used revolutionary tribunals to eliminate opponents and instill widespread fear in the name of defending the Republic. Similarly, the Stalinist purges in the USSR terrorized the Soviet population, especially the political and military elites, through arbitrary arrests, mass executions, and show trials. These examples demonstrate that states have, at many times in history, used methods that meet the criteria of terror defined by Aron: targeted violence to produce an outsized psychological impact.

Aron emphasizes the intentionality of terrorist acts, which he considers a fundamental characteristic. According to him, these acts aim to create a climate of generalized fear to achieve political or ideological objectives. What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violence, in his analysis, is the asymmetry of the means used by the perpetrators and the effects they seek to produce. A terrorist group, with limited resources, can, through spectacular or shocking acts, provoke a disproportionate reaction from the governments and societies targeted.

This asymmetry is particularly illustrated by the attacks of September 11, 2001. With rudimentary means (box cutters, plane tickets and flight training), the members of Al-Qaeda orchestrated an event of major psychological and geopolitical significance. The impact of these attacks far outweighed the immediate human and material losses, leading to an overhaul of global security policies, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a lasting transformation of international relations. Although Aron's definition has influenced many works on terrorism, it is not without its critics. By excluding state terrorism, Aron narrows the field of analysis and omits important forms of terror used by regimes to assert their power or repress their opponents. This exclusion can be seen as an attempt to depoliticize the concept of terrorism, by limiting it to non-state actors, which could reflect an ideological or methodological bias. Moreover, the strict distinction it makes between terrorism and State violence can be difficult to maintain in practice. For example, bombings of civilians by state forces, such as those of the Luftwaffe during World War II or the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, share certain characteristics with terrorism: a disproportionate psychological impact aimed at subduing or destabilizing an adversary. These examples blur the lines between terrorism and war, between state and non-state actors.

Raymond Aron's definition, by focusing on the intentions and psychological effects of terrorist acts, provides a valuable perspective for analyzing the strategies of non-state groups. However, his choice to exclude the state as an actor in terrorism limits the scope of his analysis and raises questions about institutional responsibilities in the production of terror. By ignoring the historical contexts in which states have used terror as a political tool, the Aronian definition risks missing an essential part of the phenomenon.

This intentionalist perspective nevertheless remains relevant for understanding contemporary phenomena such as mass attacks or terrorist campaigns carried out by armed groups. It sheds light on the asymmetrical dynamics and psychological strategies that define modern terrorism. However, for a more complete understanding, it must be complemented by a reflection on the institutional and structural forms of terror, including those exercised by states. This would make it possible to go beyond the limits of a purely technical definition to approach terrorism as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, rooted in both state and non-state dynamics.

Kriegel and the distinction between terrorism and political assassination

Annie Kriegel draws a sharp distinction between terrorism and political assassination, highlighting their different intentionality and distinct implications. According to her, although these two forms of violence can sometimes overlap, they are based on logics and ends that should not be confused. She writes:

"Even though they often complement each other and are equally reprehensible, political assassinations and terrorism are two different things: terrorism is inherently indiscriminate and strikes innocent people who are taken hostage. Political assassination kills opponents."

This distinction highlights fundamental differences in the nature and objectives of these two types of violent actions. Where political assassination focuses on specific targets, usually perceived as threats or direct adversaries, terrorism is characterized by a much more indiscriminate approach, seeking to sow collective terror and manipulate public perceptions.

In Kriegel's perspective, terrorism is distinguished by its indiscriminate nature and its ability to strike indiscriminate targets. The victims of terrorism are often civilians or innocent people, chosen not for what they represent individually, but for the psychological impact that their suffering or death can have on a society as a whole. This strategy aims to instil a climate of widespread fear, exploiting the uncertainty and unpredictability of attacks to destabilize social and political structures.

Terrorism, as defined by Kriegel, is part of a logic of collective terror. The main objective is not so much physical or material destruction as the production of a disproportionate psychological effect. Terrorist acts are designed to manipulate perceptions, divert attention from political priorities, and force often excessive responses from authorities, which can amplify their initial impact.

Political assassination, on the other hand, is based on a targeted and strategic logic. It is a question of eliminating a specific individual, perceived as an obstacle or a threat to a given political project. Unlike terrorism, which aims to affect a large and indistinct population, political assassination is directed against clearly identified adversaries, often with the aim of changing the balance of power or facilitating a political transition.

This form of violence usually takes place in a more restricted setting, where the motivations are explicitly political and the objectives clearly defined. For example, the assassination of historical figures such as Julius Caesar, John F. Kennedy, and Patrice Lumumba illustrates how this form of violence can be used to try to redefine national or international political trajectories.

Kriegel's distinction is largely based on the intentionality that underlies these two forms of violence. Whereas political assassination is part of a dynamic of direct confrontation between clearly identified actors, terrorism is based on a more diffuse intention, aimed at provoking a global impact through asymmetrical means. This analysis highlights a key difference in the way these acts are perceived and interpreted: political assassination can, in some contexts, be rationalized as a strategic tactic, while terrorism is systematically stigmatized as illegitimate and destructive violence.

However, this distinction is not always absolute. In some cases, the lines between terrorism and political assassination can become blurred, especially when targeted acts are intended to cause a wider psychological effect. For example, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, which contributed to the outbreak of World War I, can be interpreted as both a political assassination and a terrorist act, due to its overall consequences.

Kriegel's distinction between terrorism and political assassination has important implications for how these acts are perceived and treated. By qualifying an act as terrorist, it is denied any political or moral legitimacy, by insisting on its blind and destructive character. In contrast, political assassination, while still reprehensible, is sometimes seen as a form of strategic violence that can be integrated into a broader logic of conflict or resistance.

This distinction also reflects power dynamics in the way violent acts are named and interpreted. Governments and the media tend to use the term "terrorism" to delegitimize the violent actions of their opponents, while some revolutionary or resistance groups prefer to present their actions as political assassinations, in order to claim rationality and legitimacy for their struggle.

Kriegel's distinction between terrorism and political assassination offers a valuable analytical framework for understanding the diversity of forms of political violence. However, it is largely based on interpretive criteria, such as intentionality and target, which may be subject to debate. Historical contexts and dominant narratives play a critical role in how these acts are characterized and perceived.

This distinction sheds light on the fundamental differences between two forms of violence, while highlighting their points of convergence. While terrorism is distinguished by its indiscrimination and collective impact, and political assassination by its precision and strategic objectives, both are nevertheless part of the same logic of contesting established power structures. This reflection highlights the complexity of the phenomena of political violence and the need for a nuanced approach to grasp all its dimensions.

The intentionalist filter: strengths and limitations

The intentionalist approach is distinguished by its ability to analyze terrorism as a form of rational and instrumentalized violence, thought out and directed towards specific objectives. It highlights the premeditation and strategy of the actors, trying to reveal the motivations underlying their actions. This approach makes it possible to explore key dimensions of the phenomenon, whether it is the critique of a global system (Baudrillard), the denunciation of state and market structures of domination (Vaneigem), or the analysis of the tactics of non-state actors (Aron and Kriegel).

By focusing on intentions, this perspective sheds light on the political, ideological or symbolic objectives that underlie terrorist acts, highlighting their logic and internal coherence. For example, it may explain why certain groups choose specific targets or use dramatic modes of action to maximize their psychological impact. The intentionalist approach is particularly useful in understanding how limited resources can be exploited to produce disproportionate effects, illustrating the inherent asymmetry of terrorism.

On the downstream side [the impact of actions]

The downstream approach, which focuses on the impact of terrorist acts rather than their intentions, is based on a depoliticization of the concept of terrorism. This perspective is less interested in the motivations or ideologies of the perpetrators than in the practical consequences and psychological effects of their actions. This approach sheds light on the way in which terrorism is perceived, used and instrumentalized, both by the perpetrators of the acts and by the political or social actors who interpret them.

Jean-Luc Marret offers a deliberately technical and pragmatic vision of terrorism, defining it as "a practice, or even a profession". This approach sees terrorism as a form of professionalization of violence, exemplified by figures like Carlos, nicknamed "the Jackal." Carlos, by selling his skills to the highest bidder, embodies this idea of terrorism conceived not as an ideological or political act, but as a violent provision of services, independent of any specific cause.

Problematic typologies of terrorism

The analysis of terrorism through the impact of acts has given rise to a multiplicity of typologies, each attempting to classify terrorist acts according to their objectives, their means or the effects they produce. These typologies seek to bring clarity to a field marked by its complexity, but they raise as many questions as they provide answers. The diversity of terrorist manifestations makes it difficult, if not impossible, to categorize them rigorously and universally.

Political terrorism

This typology is based on the idea that terrorism is intrinsically linked to political objectives or demands. By definition, terrorism seems inseparable from an ambition for transformation or political opposition. However, this conception raises an essential question: can there be terrorism devoid of any political dimension? Some violent acts, such as those perpetrated by criminal or mafia groups, defy this definition. A mafioso, for example, does not aim to transform society; It acts mainly for material gain, following a criminal ideology that differs fundamentally from political demands.

This tension highlights a limitation of the political typology. By excluding certain types of violence motivated by non-political interests, it narrows the scope of analysis of terrorism and neglects acts which, although similar in form, differ in their ends.

Terrorism of the weak

Terrorism is often described as "the weapon of the weak". This typology is based on the idea that groups with few resources use asymmetric tactics to confront more powerful opponents. The use of terrorism, in this context, appears to be a strategic response to an inability to compete directly with dominant states or institutions.

However, this definition raises a fundamental question: can there be a "terrorism of the strong"? For example, can a state with considerable resources be called a terrorist when it uses tactics of fear or indiscriminate violence to achieve its goals? Bombings of civilians, terror campaigns by authoritarian regimes or strategies of extreme repression blur the line between weakness and strength, calling into question the validity of this typology.

Ideological terrorism

Another typology distinguishes ideological terrorism, which is based on deep convictions, whether political, religious or social. This category seems intuitive: terrorist acts are often presented as motivated by a specific ideology. However, this definition raises a crucial question: can we conceive of terrorism devoid of ideology?

Even seemingly apolitical or economically motivated acts seem to fit within an implicit ideological framework. A criminal group that uses violence to protect its territory or economic interests follows an ideological logic, even if it is not formalized as a political doctrine. This observation further complicates the distinction between the different motivations behind terrorism.

Indiscriminate terrorism

Indiscriminate terrorism refers to attacks directed at indiscriminate targets aimed at spreading fear in general. This category is distinguished by its lack of precise targeting, as victims are chosen because of their accessibility or symbolism. However, this typology raises a corollary question: what is "non-blind terrorism"? Are targeted attacks against specific strategic infrastructure, political figures or institutions still terrorism?

The distinction between blind and non-blind is particularly blurred, as even targeted attacks can produce disproportionate psychological effects, exceeding their immediate purpose. For example, the assassination of a major political figure can have an overall impact comparable to that of an indiscriminate attack on civilians.

Irreducible complexity

These typologies, explored in particular by Isabelle Sommier, reveal the constant effort to classify in a field that escapes any conceptual simplification. Each attempt at categorization seems to give rise to new ambiguities or exceptions. The distinctions between political, ideological, blind and weak terrorism illustrate how multifaceted and difficult the phenomenon is to define.

This complexity is not only theoretical: it reflects the reality of terrorism itself, which evolves according to the historical contexts, the actors involved and the means used. In the end, the typologies of terrorism, although useful for organizing thought, struggle to capture all the dynamics at play. This difficulty underscores the need for a more flexible and interdisciplinary approach, capable of taking into account the diversity of forms and manifestations of terrorism without seeking to reduce it to a single or universal essence.

Noam Chomsky: a critique of the instrumentalization of terrorism

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Noam Chomsky developed a radical critique of the use and manipulation of the term "terrorism." According to him, this concept is not neutral: it is deeply instrumentalized by the authorities, particularly in the context of the Bush administration, to serve political and ideological objectives. Chomsky sums up this idea by saying

"Terrorism is what the leaders call it."

For Chomsky, the analysis of terrorism cannot be limited to the examination of the acts themselves. It invites us to question the way in which these acts are designated and interpreted, because the qualification of "terrorist" reflects less an objective reality than a strategic discursive choice. This designation is used to delegitimize certain forms of violence while legitimizing repressive responses, which can themselves produce effects comparable to those of terrorism. In this sense, the word "terrorism" becomes a tool in the service of power relations, allowing states to consolidate their authority while discrediting their opponents.

Chomsky highlights the subjectivity inherent in the use of the word "terrorism." This subjectivity allows governments and dominant institutions to arbitrarily define what constitutes a terrorist act and what does not constitute a terrorist act, according to their interests. For example, violent acts committed by allies or strategic partners may be presented as legitimate actions, while similar acts, when committed by adversaries, are qualified as terrorism.

This manipulation is part of a logic of narrative control, where language plays a central role in the construction of public perceptions. By labeling an act as "terrorist," leaders create a moral dichotomy between "them" (the terrorists) and "us" (the legitimate forces), thus justifying drastic measures such as mass surveillance, military interventions, or restrictions on civil liberties. According to Chomsky, this instrumentalization of the concept often masks the real motivations of state actors and the complex dynamics of conflicts.

Chomsky's criticism takes on a particularly strong dimension in the context of the "war on terror" launched by the Bush administration after 9/11. He denounces the hypocrisy and contradictions of this policy, which relies on an opportunistic definition of terrorism to justify military interventions on a global scale. For Chomsky, this approach is not about fighting terrorism as such, but about protecting and expanding U.S. geopolitical interests.

In this context, Chomsky invites us not to focus on terrorism as an object, but on the practices and discourses that surround it. In particular, he criticizes the use of the word to conceal violence carried out by states themselves, which he sometimes describes as "state terrorism". These acts, although not labelled as such, often produce similar effects: widespread fear, destruction and destabilization.

In this context, the downstream approach, which focuses on the consequences of the acts rather than their intentions, is partly in line with Chomsky's critique. It sheds light on the way in which the concept of terrorism can be depoliticized and technicalized, treated as a simple strategy or practice, regardless of ideological or historical contexts. This perspective exposes the mechanisms by which dominant states or groups construct narratives to justify their actions and delegitimize those of their opponents.

Chomsky points out that this depoliticization contributes to strengthening elite control over public discourse, excluding the root causes of conflict from debates and reducing terrorism to a security issue. This approach oversimplifies complex phenomena to the extreme, evacuating the historical, social and economic dynamics that underlie violent acts.

Chomsky's critique goes beyond the framework of terrorism to question the way in which language is used to structure power relations. By questioning the apparent neutrality of the word "terrorism", he reveals the biases and interests that guide its use. This reflection invites us to adopt a critical posture in the face of official discourses, by examining the underlying motivations and implications of the words used.

For Chomsky, the real challenge is not to define terrorism, but to understand the mechanisms by which it is instrumentalized. This analysis highlights the complexity of the phenomenon, while stressing the importance of going beyond simplistic categorizations and dominant narratives to understand the multiple and conflictual realities of political violence.

An impossibility of simplification

The analysis of terrorist acts, whether intentionalist or focused on their impact, highlights a fundamental reality: the word "terrorism" escapes any attempt at conceptual simplification. It cannot be reduced to a universal definition or a single essence, due to the diversity of contexts, motivations and actors involved. Terrorism, far from being an external or isolated phenomenon, is deeply rooted in the social, political and economic dynamics of human societies.

This complexity stems from several factors. On the one hand, the motivations of terrorist actors are multiple and often intertwined: political, religious, ideological, social, and even economic. On the other hand, the forms that terrorism takes vary widely, ranging from indiscriminate attacks to targeted assassinations, and their effects can be both local and global. Finally, the concept itself is influenced by the ideological frameworks and interests of the actors who use it to qualify or disqualify certain forms of violence. Thus, terrorism is as much an object of analysis as a discursive tool, which further complicates any attempt to define it unequivocally.

The impact approach, by focusing on the consequences of terrorist acts, offers interesting perspectives for understanding their psychological, social and political scope. It highlights the disproportionate effect of these acts, which, often with limited means, manage to generate collective fear or provoke massive state responses. This approach also highlights the instrumentalization of the concept of terrorism by states and institutions, showing how it is used to justify repressive policies or military interventions.

However, this focus on consequences also has limitations. By neglecting the intentions and structural dynamics underlying terrorist acts, it risks decontextualizing them and reducing their analysis to technical mechanisms. However, terrorist acts only take on their full meaning when they are placed in their historical, cultural and political context. For example, an attack in a country at civil war cannot be understood in the same way as an isolated act in a stable democracy, even if their immediate impacts may seem comparable.

The impossibility of simplifying the concept of terrorism should not lead to abandoning its analysis, but rather to recognizing the need for plural and complementary approaches. While the impact approach highlights the effects of acts, it must be put in dialogue with intentionalistic, historical and sociological perspectives to offer a more complete understanding of the phenomenon.

Thus, an integrated analysis of terrorism should include:

• "The intentions and motivations of the actors": To understand why and how certain individuals or groups choose terrorism as a mode of action.
• Social and political dynamics': Examine the contexts that promote the emergence of terrorism, whether it be conflicts, marginalization or economic crises.
• "Psychological consequences and effects": Assessing the impact of terrorist acts on populations, institutions and international relations.
• The instrumentalization of the concept: To question the uses of the word terrorism by states and the media, by highlighting the ideological or strategic interests they reflect.

Terrorism is not an external or exceptional reality; it is deeply rooted in the structures and tensions of modern societies. It reflects the power relations, inequalities and conflicts that run through these societies, while contributing to reshaping them. This integration explains why terrorism is so difficult to define and analyze: it is not an isolated phenomenon, but a practice that evolves according to contexts and social dynamics.

Ultimately, the impossibility of simplifying the concept of terrorism is a reflection of its intrinsic complexity. Acknowledging this complexity does not mean giving up on understanding it, but on the contrary, accepting that its analysis requires multiple tools and a critical reflection on our own frameworks of thought. It is by combining these perspectives that we can hope to understand terrorism in all its richness and diversity, taking into account its causes, manifestations and effects.

Historical overview of the history of terrorism

The history of terrorism, in order to be understood in all its complexity, is based on an all-encompassing and minimalist definition: the act of violence as a common point. This choice makes it possible to explore the multiple forms and evolutions of terrorism through the centuries, without focusing exclusively on specific contexts or motivations. Terrorism, from this perspective, appears as a universal and polymorphous phenomenon, evolving according to the social, political and ideological structures of different eras.

Ancient tyrannicide: an idealized origin

The idea of tyrannicide, considered as a morally and politically legitimate act, is one of the first forms of organized violence that can be linked to what could be described as the ancestor of terrorism. In Antiquity, this practice was normalized and often valued, particularly in the context of the philosophical reflections of Plato and Aristotle. These thinkers saw tyrannicide as an ethical necessity, a duty to free society from an unjust or oppressive ruler.

For Plato and Aristotle, the tyrant embodies the corruption of power, a danger to stability and justice within the city. Its elimination is perceived not as an act of rebellion, but as an act of restoration of order and virtue. This reasoning, based on both moral and political legitimacy, gave tyrannicide an important place in ancient thought.

This view is reflected in the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, often held up as an emblematic example of tyrannicide. This murder, perpetrated by a group of Roman senators convinced that Caesar was threatening the republican foundations of Rome, is immortalized by Plutarch, who writes:

"Metellus uncovered the top of his shoulder; that was the signal. Casca struck him first with his sword."

While antiquity valued tyrannicide as an act of justice, it should be noted that this is not always a purely ethical move. Behind this ideal, political interests and personal rivalries often play an important role. The assassination of Julius Caesar, although invoked as a defense of the Republic, was also marked by power struggles between the Roman elites. This event shows that tyrannicide, even when presented as a virtuous act, can be motivated by more complex dynamics, mixing ideals and personal ambitions.

This ambiguity reflects a central characteristic of tyrannicide: while it is justified by a rhetoric of legitimacy and morality, it raises questions about the nature and limits of political violence. To what extent does the end justify the means? Who decides that a ruler is a tyrant? These questions, although posed in an ancient context, remain relevant in modern debates on the legitimacy of violence in politics.

Ancient tyrannicide has left a lasting legacy in the political imagination, influencing debates about the legitimacy of violence and the actions of revolutionary or dissident groups. The idea that the removal of an oppressive leader can be morally justified can be found in the theories and practices of many eras, from modern revolutions to national liberation struggles.

This idealized origin of tyrannicide also lays the foundations for a reflection on the tensions between morality, law and power. While Antiquity made it a civic duty, the evolution of social and political contexts has gradually transformed the perception of these acts. Today, actions that could be equated with tyrannicides are often reclassified as terrorism or political violence, highlighting the difficulty of defining legitimacy in a world where ideological and legal frameworks vary.

In short, ancient tyrannicide represents a first form of organized violence thought of as a legitimate response to injustice, while illustrating the ambiguities and paradoxes of political violence. This ancient reflection continues to inform contemporary debates on the morality and legitimacy of violent actions in the context of struggles for power and justice.

Zealots and Assassins: Sacred Violence

In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, forms of organized violence emerged, deeply rooted in religious and ideological motivations. These groups, such as the Jewish Zealots and the Assassins, used terror and targeted killing tactics to pursue sacred or political goals. Their use of strategic violence, often public and spectacular, makes them precursors of certain modern forms of terrorism.

The "Jewish Zealots," active in the Judea region under Roman occupation, are among the first groups to associate targeted violence with a struggle for national and religious liberation. Among them, the "Sicarii", an extremist faction, used daggers (sicae) to assassinate their enemies, whether they were Jewish collaborators or Roman representatives. These attacks were often carried out in public places, such as markets or crowded streets in Jerusalem, in order to sow fear and send a clear message to the occupiers and their allies.

This strategy aimed not only to physically eliminate opponents, but also to weaken Roman authority by creating a climate of insecurity and instability. The Sicarii embodied a form of radical religious violence, where every act was justified by the defense of the faith and the Jewish community. Their approach combines elements of political resistance, urban guerrilla tactics, and religious symbolism, making them hybrid actors of organized violence.

Similarly, the Hashishin sect, known in the West as the Assassins, embodies another form of sacred violence. Active between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, the Assassins were a Shia Ismaili faction, led by Hassan-i Sabbah, who sought to defend their doctrine and oppose the Crusaders, Sunni Abbasids, and other political or religious opponents. Their strategy was based on targeted, often spectacular assassinations targeting power figures such as governors, generals or religious dignitaries.

The Assassins were famous for their meticulous preparation and extreme dedication, even sacrificing their own lives. These acts, often committed in broad daylight and in public places, were intended not only to eliminate strategic targets, but also to send a strong political message. The publicity of their actions played a central role, amplifying the psychological impact of their attacks and cementing their reputation for terror.

Zealots and Assassins share characteristics that bring them closer to contemporary forms of terrorism. Their use of targeted violence, combined with a strong symbolic dimension and a strategic use of advertising, anticipates dynamics that can be found in modern groups such as Al-Qaeda. The latter, like the Assassins, inscribe their actions in an ideological and religious struggle, where each attack aims as much to convey a message as to inflict damage.

However, there are major differences. While Zealots and Assassins operated in restricted geographical and cultural contexts, modern terrorist groups often operate on a global scale, thanks to communication technologies and international networks. In addition, the Assassins primarily targeted power figures, while contemporary groups frequently strike at civilian populations, increasing the psychological impact of their attacks.

Zealots and Assassins exemplify a form of sacred violence, where religion and politics are intimately linked. For these groups, violence is not an end in itself: it is a means to defend a faith, a community or an ideology perceived as threatened. These acts are part of a logic of martyrdom and dedication, where the perpetrators of violence agree to sacrifice their lives for a cause deemed superior.

This link between faith and violence raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy and limits of violence in ideological struggles. While these groups justify their actions on religious or moral grounds, their opponents often perceive them as fanatics or terrorists, showing that the characterization of such violence depends largely on historical and cultural perspectives.

The Zealots and the Assassins have made history with their use of calculated and highly symbolic violence. Their legacy, although limited to specific historical contexts, continues to influence debates about political and religious violence. These groups demonstrate that terrorism, far from being a modern phenomenon, has deep roots in human history, where faith and politics intertwine to justify extreme actions.

The analysis of these historical examples shows that sacred violence, although ideologically and culturally distinct, shares fundamental dynamics with modern forms of terrorism. It highlights the importance of understanding the context, motivations and strategies behind these acts to grasp their meaning and impact.

Institutional violence: the Inquisition and the Wars of Religion

Terrorism is not limited to the actions of groups or isolated individuals; it can also be exercised by established institutions and systems of power. These forms of systemic violence, often organized and legitimized by religious or political frameworks, show how institutions can use terror to control populations and maintain an established order. Two striking examples of this dynamic are the Spanish Inquisition and the religious wars in Europe, where violence was deployed on a large scale, engendering collective terror.

The "Spanish Inquisition", active between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, illustrates the institutional use of terror to suppress heresy and maintain religious cohesion in a society dominated by Catholicism. Created in 1478 under the authority of the Catholic Monarchs, the Inquisition's mission was to identify, judge and punish individuals considered to be religiously deviant, including conversos (Jews converted to Christianity) and Moriscos (Muslim converts).

The Inquisition's method was based on a mixture of judicial procedures, religious propaganda and exemplary violence. The trials, often secret, were accompanied by torture and spectacular sentences, such as public burning at the stake. These executions, staged to inspire fear, were intended to dissuade the population from any religious deviance.

The Inquisition is thus a paradigmatic example of how an institution can instrumentalize terror for the purposes of social control and ideological order. By transforming fear into a tool of governance, it illustrates the dynamics of "state terrorism" before its time, where violence is legitimized by religious and political frameworks.

The "Wars of Religion" in Europe, which took place between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, represent another form of institutionalized violence, where sectarian conflicts are mixed with political ambitions. These wars, often triggered by rivalries between Catholics and Protestants, were characterized by systemic violence that went beyond military confrontations to the civilian population.

The culmination of this period was the "Thirty Years' War" (1618-1648), a devastating conflict that mixed religious and dynastic issues. This conflict, marked by massacres, famines and massive destruction, engendered collective terror throughout Central Europe. Entire villages are destroyed, and civilians are often targeted in a war that goes beyond the bounds of traditional military conventions.

This systematic violence shows how institutions – whether religious or state – can use fear as a weapon to impose their vision of the world. The wars of religion are not limited to theological disputes; They also represent a struggle for political power, where terror becomes a means of submission and control.

The Inquisition and the Wars of Religion illustrate a central characteristic of institutional violence: it is legitimized by ideological discourses that justify its use in the name of faith, security, or social order. Unlike individual or group terrorist acts, this violence is structurally supported, relying on institutions established to organize, execute and justify terror.

This institutional legitimacy gives an appearance of normality to practices that, in other circumstances, would be described as barbaric or inhumane. It also serves to mask the underlying goals of such violence, whether it is to consolidate political power, eliminate rivals, or strengthen a collective identity.

Institutional violence such as the Inquisition and the Wars of Religion mark a turning point in the history of terror, showing how established systems can instrumentalize fear for control. These examples are a reminder that terror is not only the work of dissident groups or marginal actors; it can be integrated into the very functioning of societies, in a logic of domination and submission.

These historical episodes offer valuable insight into the dynamics of institutional terror, where organized and legitimized violence becomes a central tool of power. They also point to the continuity between these ancient forms of terror and some modern practices, where state violence continues to be justified in the name of security or public order.

The Revolutionary Terror: a rationalization of violence

With the French Revolution, terrorism took on a new dimension by becoming a fully assumed state policy. The period of the "Revolutionary Terror" (1793-1794), orchestrated by figures such as Maximilien Robespierre and Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, theorized violence as an essential tool to guarantee the survival of the Republic in the face of its enemies, both internal and external. The Terror was no longer limited to dissident violence; it is institutionalized, rationalized and justified by a powerful ideological discourse.

Saint-Just sums up this logic by declaring:

"Those who cannot be governed by justice must be governed by the sword: tyrants must be oppressed."

This statement illustrates the idea that violence, far from being an anomaly or a last resort, becomes a necessary practice to protect revolutionary ideals and consolidate a new political regime. Through this prism, terror is not perceived as an aberration, but as an instrument of justice and efficiency.

The Revolutionary Terror was based on an ideological legitimation that gave an appearance of moral necessity to extreme acts. Robespierre justified violence by presenting it as an expression of revolutionary virtue. According to him, the nascent Republic had to be purified of its enemies, whether they were royalists, Girondists or suspected of counter-revolutionary sympathies. This logic leads to the execution of thousands of people, often after summary trials, and to the creation of a climate of widespread fear.

The use of the guillotine, a symbol of the Terror, embodies this desire to industrialize repression. The rationalization of violence, through institutions such as the "Revolutionary Tribunal", aims to centralize and normalize the elimination of opponents. The public dimension of the executions, which is largely staged, serves as much to punish as to intimidate, thus strengthening the state's control over the population.

After the fall of Robespierre and the end of the Terror in July 1794, the royalists, seeking to re-establish the Ancien Régime, adopted similar tactics. The period known as the "White Terror" (1815-1816) saw systematic violence directed against supporters of the Revolution and republicans. Royalists used intimidation, assassinations, and purges to eliminate their political opponents, demonstrating that institutionalized violence was not the preserve of revolutionaries.

This dynamic shows how violence, when legitimized by ideology or political discourse, can be embraced by opposing factions. The White Terror, although ideologically different from the Revolutionary Terror, reflects a continuity in the use of terror as a means of consolidating power.

The Revolutionary Terror marked a major break in the history of terrorism. It transforms violence, traditionally associated with marginal or dissident actors, into a central practice of the state. This rationalization of terror ushered in a new era in which violence was used in a systematic and organized manner to maintain political or social order.

This period also illustrates the dangers inherent in legitimizing violence in the name of an ideal. By giving a moral dimension to repressive acts, revolutionaries have paved the way for abuses and an escalation of violence, which eventually backfires. Robespierre himself, an architect of the Terror, became a victim, executed in July 1794 during the fall of the Jacobins.

The Revolutionary Terror left a lasting legacy, influencing debates about the legitimacy of violence and modern political practices. It shows how an ideology, when supported by a centralized power, can justify extreme acts in the name of stability and progress. This period also inspired other political movements, which adopted similar tactics to achieve their goals, from twentieth-century totalitarian regimes to contemporary revolutions.

The Revolutionary Terror represents a key moment in the history of institutional violence. It demonstrates how terror, as an instrument of the state, can be rationalized and legitimized, while highlighting the dangers it poses to the ideals it claims to defend. This reflection remains relevant to understanding modern forms of terrorism and strategies of state control, where violence continues to be used as a tool of power and domination.

The emergence of anarchism and modern terrorism

From the nineteenth century onwards, terrorism evolved to take on a more individualized, ideological and transnational dimension, particularly under the influence of "anarchism". This movement, which rejects any form of state or social domination, often considers violence as a legitimate means of revolution. Figures like "Michel Bakunin" theorize the use of force as a lever to break down structures of oppression and accelerate social change. It is in this context that the theory of "propaganda by the deed" was born, where the violent act becomes a means of political communication, intended to attract attention, galvanize sympathizers, and incite mobilization.

"Propaganda by the deed" is based on the idea that violent action, whether it is an attack or an assassination, is in itself a political discourse. Unlike speeches or manifestos, the terrorist act aims to provoke an immediate shock, by exposing the fragility of power structures and inspiring revolt among the oppressed. This concept, developed by European anarchists, marks a break with more traditional forms of political resistance, valuing individual or small group violence as a tool for social transformation.

An emblematic example of this strategy is the assassination of Empress Elisabeth of Austria in 1898 by Luigi Lucheni, an anarchist who believed that the elimination of symbolic figures of aristocratic power could strike the collective imagination. Similarly, in France, anarchists like "Ravachol" use bombs to attack institutional targets, embodying this desire to convey a message of defiance through destruction.

In Russia, the pre-revolutionary revolutionary struggle provides fertile ground for the emergence of modern forms of terrorism. Groups such as Narodnaya Volya (The People's Will) adopted violent tactics to fight the tsarist regime, combining political assassination and sabotage. Their most significant action was the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, an act that symbolized their commitment to autocracy and their belief in the transformative power of violence.

This period was accompanied by an intense ideological production. Texts such as the "Revolutionary Catechism", attributed to Sergei Nechaev, justify violence as a necessity in the struggle against the oppressors. These writings provide a theoretical basis for terrorist acts, presenting them as morally justified and strategically necessary actions to bring about revolutionary change. Violence, in this context, becomes both a means of resistance and a propaganda tool.

Anarchism and its methods spread rapidly throughout Europe, especially in Italy, Spain and France. These countries became hotbeds of anarchist activity, where attacks and targeted assassinations multiplied. For example, in 1900, the Italian anarchist "Gaetano Bresci" assassinated King Umberto I of Italy, while in Spain, anarchists carried out a series of attacks against religious institutions and representatives of power.

This wave of violence illustrates the internationalization of anarchist ideas, supported by transnational networks and common rhetoric. Anarchists share a universal vision of the struggle against oppression, making their actions symbols of global resistance, regardless of borders or specific regimes.

The emergence of anarchism and the theory of propaganda by the fact marks a turning point in the history of terrorism. These ideas introduced elements that would become characteristic of modern terrorism: the emphasis on the individual or small group as a vehicle for change, the strategic use of violence as a means of communication, and the importance of publicity to maximize the impact of actions.

However, this approach raises questions about the effectiveness and consequences of violence. Although some acts had a significant impact, such as the assassination of Alexander II or Umberto I, they often led to increased repressions, weakening anarchist movements and strengthening the regimes they sought to overthrow. This ambivalence reflects the limitations of terrorism as a political strategy: it can attract attention, but it often struggles to produce lasting structural change.

Nineteenth-century anarchism laid the foundations for modern terrorism, introducing concepts and practices that endure in contemporary movements. While the context has changed, the dynamics remain similar: violence is used not only to inflict harm, but also to inspire, shock and mobilize. Anarchist ideas continue to influence debates about the legitimacy of violence in political and social struggles, underscoring their relevance in a world where ideological conflicts remain pervasive.

The emergence of anarchism and modern terrorism illustrates how violence can become a central tool in struggles for power and justice, while posing ethical and strategic challenges that remain at the heart of debates about terrorism today.

Propaganda by the deed and the importance of publicity

The idea of "propaganda by the deed" is based on a fundamental principle: the violent act derives its meaning and impact not only from the destruction it causes, but above all from its ability to be seen, heard and interpreted. Terrorism, in this context, is not limited to simple physical violence: it becomes a tool of communication, a means of transmitting a political or ideological message. The violent act is designed to strike the collective imagination, attract attention and provoke reactions that amplify its effect.

The public dimension of the terrorist act is at the heart of the theory of propaganda by the deed. Violence is not only used to inflict human or material losses; it is staged to maximize its symbolic impact. This strategy explains why terrorist acts are often committed in urban areas, where visibility is maximum and the media can quickly relay information. Large cities, with their concentration of populations, symbolic structures and media resources, are becoming prime targets.

For example, nineteenth-century anarchist attacks, such as the Ravachol attacks in France, were often planned to coincide with places and times when their media resonance would be strongest. It is not the material destruction in itself that matters; it is the underlying message, the psychological impact, and the ability to elicit a political or social response.

Propaganda by the deed gives a political and symbolic dimension to acts otherwise reduced to their raw violence. In the absence of publicity, the act loses its significance. It is this visibility that allows the perpetrator or the group responsible for the act to explain, justify or claim his action, linking it to a cause or an ideology. The assassination of a dignitary, the explosion of a building or the taking of hostages become tools to challenge the government, mobilize support or draw international attention to a claim.

This strategy is found in many modern contexts. For example, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were painstakingly designed to harness the power of the global media. The destruction of the World Trade Center towers, which was broadcast live around the world, allowed al-Qaeda to turn an act of violence into a symbolic and political demonstration of global significance.

The role of the media in the dissemination and interpretation of terrorist acts is central to the logic of propaganda by deeds. By relaying images, testimonies and analyses, the media participate in the construction of the message intended by the perpetrators of the acts. This phenomenon amplifies their psychological impact and extends their reach far beyond their place of execution.

However, this interaction between terrorism and the media raises ethical and strategic questions. The media, by highlighting terrorist acts, risks becoming unintended instruments of terrorist objectives. This dilemma underscores the complexity of the relationship between terrorist violence, its media coverage and the reactions to it.

Propaganda by deed is inseparable from the very nature of terrorism, which seeks less to defeat an adversary by brute force than to influence perceptions and behaviour. The goal is not only to destroy, but to produce a lasting effect on the minds of viewers, whether they are citizens, governments or international institutions.

In this sense, the publicity of the terrorist act is a sine qua non condition for its effectiveness. Without visibility, the act loses its ability to provoke collective fear, legitimize a cause or attract support. This explains why terrorist groups invest so much in staging their actions and in making public claims.

However, this strategy also has limitations and risks. While publicity about a terrorist act can attract attention, it can also lead to unanimous condemnation or increased repression. Moreover, the media impact can overshadow political demands, reducing the act to a gratuitous display of violence in the public eye. This tension between the desired effect and the perceived effect underscores the challenges inherent in the strategy of propaganda by the deed.

Propaganda by the deed, although originating from the anarchist context of the nineteenth century, remains an essential component of modern forms of terrorism. It highlights the way in which violence can be transformed into a symbolic language, intended to captivate and influence. In a world where digital media and social media further amplify the visibility of terrorist acts, this strategy remains relevant.

Ultimately, propaganda by the deed shows that terrorism, far from being a mere expression of raw violence, is based on a sophisticated understanding of social, media, and psychological dynamics. It illustrates how terrorist acts seek to transcend their materiality to become messages, symbols and tools of ideological transformation.

The history of terrorism reveals one constant: extreme violence is always accompanied by the production of an "ideological discourse". Whether through theoretical texts, manifestos or public statements, terrorist groups seek to legitimize their actions and mobilize support. This dynamic persists to the present day, where communication strategies play a central role in terrorist acts.

The history of terrorism shows that this phenomenon, far from being uniform, is marked by continuous evolution, according to historical contexts and social structures. From antiquity to contemporary times, it reflects the tensions and contradictions of human societies, while emphasizing the importance of discourse and publicity in the staging of violence. This historical perspective provides an essential framework for understanding the complex dynamics of modern terrorism.

Around the First World War: 1914 - 1918

The era around the First World War marked a turning point in the evolution of forms of revolutionary and terrorist violence, with the emergence of movements detached from purely religious or spiritual references. This period is characterized by a rise in national and revolutionary struggles, often linked to the creation or defense of nation-states and the resistance of oppressed nations to their oppressors. Terrorism then becomes a strategic tool in contexts of colonial domination, imperialist rivalries or internal resistance.

The beginnings of nationalist and revolutionary struggles

At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, many armed movements emerged, driven by the desire to assert a national identity and to resist foreign domination. These struggles, although diverse in their contexts and motivations, share a common goal: to break with structural oppressions through violent, often symbolic, actions. Violence then becomes a strategic tool to challenge the established order and mobilize populations.

In Ireland, resistance to British rule is structured around the Irish Republic Brotherhood (IRB), founded in 1858. This movement marked the beginning of a coherent organisation for Irish independence, based on a combination of nationalist ideology and armed action. In the twentieth century, this struggle intensified with the creation of the Irish Citizen Army (ICA) in 1918, followed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which became the central figures of the Irish resistance.

These organisations adopted a strategy of sabotage, attacks and targeted assassinations to weaken British authority and claim autonomy. Their aim was as much to cause material disruption as to mobilise the Irish population around the idea of independence. For example, sabotage campaigns aim to disrupt British infrastructure, while political assassinations seek to symbolize the movement's resolve in the face of oppression.

In 1890, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) was founded in a context of systematic persecution of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire. This movement, which combines nationalist ideology and revolutionary rhetoric, seeks to defend the rights of the Armenian people and to resist repression. The ARF adopted an offensive strategy, combining armed attacks against Ottoman institutions and propaganda actions to draw international attention to the situation of the Armenians.

The Armenian struggle is not limited to acts of violence; It is also part of a logic of mobilization of Armenian communities in the diaspora. The Armenian resistance fighters, while militarily challenging the Ottoman Empire, sought to legitimize their struggle by presenting it as a struggle for the survival and self-determination of an oppressed people.

The "Revolutionary Organization for the Independence of Macedonia (ORI)", founded in 1893, illustrates another form of struggle against Ottoman oppression. This movement adopted guerrilla tactics and bombings to demand autonomy for Macedonia. Inspired by the revolutionary ideas of the time, the ORI mobilized fighters ready to wage an armed struggle against the Ottoman forces, while striving to rally the local populations to their cause.

The ORI's activities combined sabotage, ambushes and targeted assassinations, seeking to weaken Ottoman authority while promoting the idea of a free Macedonia. This group exemplifies a broader trend at the time: the use of violence as a means of catalyzing national aspirations and opposing an imperial power deemed illegitimate.

These three examples – Ireland, Armenia and Macedonia – testify to the emergence of organised and ideologically justified violence in the service of nationalist and revolutionary struggles. Although distinct in their contexts, these movements share a common dynamic: the use of violence as a political and symbolic tool to challenge the established order, mobilize populations, and attract international attention.

These struggles mark an important milestone in the evolution of modern terrorism, showing how oppressed groups use violent tactics to advance their grievances and challenge power structures seen as unjust. This period prefigured contemporary forms of political violence, where propaganda and the publicity of acts played a central role in the legitimization of revolutionary causes.

The revolutionary and ideological context in Europe

The post-war period, marked by the political and social upheavals following the First World War, saw the emergence of nationalist, revolutionary and fascist movements that made organized violence a central tool of their strategies. These movements, while diverse in their motivations and ideologies, share a systematic use of intimidation and terror to achieve their political goals.

In Italy, the "Fasci italiani di combattimento", founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, embodies the use of violence as a lever to impose an authoritarian ideology. This fascist movement mobilizes militias, the "squadristi", to intimidate, assault and assassinate their political opponents, including socialists, trade unionists and communists. These violent actions, often tacitly supported by the economic and political elites, served to consolidate Mussolini's power and to create a climate of terror in Italian society.

The "Fasci" marks a turning point in the history of political violence in Europe: it shows how authoritarian ideologies can instrumentalize violence to transform a society and establish a dictatorial order. Systematic intimidation and targeted assassinations became legitimate tools in the eyes of the fascist regime, underscoring the centrality of terror in its rise to power.

In Germany, the "Freikorps", composed of former demobilized soldiers and nationalist paramilitaries, played a similar role in the post-war period. These groups, often poorly integrated into civil society, became the armed wings of conservative and nationalist movements. They were distinguished by their brutal tactics to suppress communist revolts and crush workers' movements, especially during the insurrections of 1919 to 1923.

The "Freikorps" are not limited to the struggle against the communists; they also participated in anti-Semitic campaigns of violence and intimidation of political opponents, laying the groundwork for the violence that would accompany the rise of Adolf Hitler. Their culture of violence and their contempt for democratic institutions contributed to the radicalization of German society and the rise of Nazism.

In Egypt, a different colonial context gave birth to the "Muslim Brotherhood Society" in 1927. Created by Hassan al-Banna, this organization opposed British rule and campaigned for a return to Islamic values as a response to colonial oppression and modernization perceived as alienating. Violence, although initially not central to their strategy, became a tool used by some factions to resist colonial forces or eliminate perceived collaborators.

The Muslim Brotherhood represents a unique synthesis between national struggle and religious demands, where Islam is perceived as a source of identity and resistance to the occupier. This movement lays the groundwork for an Islamist mobilization that will influence other groups across the Middle East, including their use of guerrilla tactics and intimidation.

These three examples – the "Fasci italiani di combattimento", the "Freikorps" and the "Muslim Brotherhood Society" – show how organized violence becomes a central strategy for movements with diverse ambitions: the imposition of authoritarian rule, the repression of opposing movements, or resistance to foreign domination. In each of these cases, violence is not limited to a means of defense or contestation: it is used to reshape societies, transform power relations and impose an ideology.

These movements bear witness to the evolution of violent practices in the twentieth century, where terrorist actions and intimidation tactics became increasingly important in political and social struggles. This period also prepares the modern dynamics of terrorism, where violence is often justified by ideological or nationalist discourses aimed at legitimizing acts otherwise condemned by international law or universal morality.

Resistance and radicalization during the Occupation

During the Second World War, the European Resistance, and particularly the French Resistance, adopted forms of targeted violence which, in their strategic logic, can be described as terrorist. These actions were aimed at weakening the Nazi occupier, disrupting its operations, and encouraging the oppressed population to mobilize. This violence, although often symbolic, plays a crucial role in the dynamics of the struggle for freedom.

A striking example of this strategy is the assassination of the German soldier "Alfons Moser" on May 21, 1941, at the Barbès metro station in Paris. This act, carried out by members of the Resistance, is highly symbolic. By choosing a public place to execute a German soldier, the resistance fighters sought to send a clear message: the occupation was not accepted and the resistance was active. This murder marks a desire to radicalize positions, intensifying violent actions to encourage a broader mobilization against the occupier.

The impact of this type of action goes beyond the direct target. It is about instilling fear among the occupying forces while boosting the morale of the local populations, showing them that oppression can be challenged. These symbolic acts, although they exposed the resistance fighters to severe reprisals, became essential elements of the psychological struggle against the occupier.

On December 24, 1942, another significant act of the Resistance was the assassination of "Admiral François Darlan" in Algiers. Although this operation was not carried out directly against the Nazi forces, it reflected the complexity of the internal struggles within the Resistance and the Allies. Darlan, perceived by some resistance fighters as a collaborator or an obstacle to liberation, was executed to assert political control over the direction of the struggle.

At the same time, the Resistance in France increased the sabotage of strategic German infrastructures. Railway networks, ammunition depots and communication centres became prime targets. These attacks were aimed at disrupting the German logistics apparatus, making it more difficult to transport troops and resources. These operations, often carried out at the risk of the lives of the resistance fighters, demonstrated an ability to strike the enemy where he was vulnerable, while inspiring the population.

The targeted violence of the Resistance, although extreme, is part of a context where traditional forms of struggle are impossible due to the total domination of the occupier. Faced with a vastly superior German army and a ruthless repressive apparatus, these actions appear to be an asymmetrical but necessary response. They also reveal a transformation of resistance practices, where violence becomes a strategic tool to assert a presence and control over the territory.

However, these actions come with serious consequences, including brutal reprisals against civilians. The Nazis, in response to these attacks, implemented policies of mass repression, including public executions and deportations. This dynamic underscores the ambiguity of violence in the context of the Resistance: it is indispensable to disrupt the occupier, but it also exposes local populations to increased suffering.

The Resistance during the Occupation illustrates the strategic use of violence in a context of total domination. Symbolic actions and sabotage demonstrate how under-equipped movements can disrupt even a superior occupying force. This period also highlights the moral and political dilemmas related to the use of violence, particularly in contexts where reprisals mainly affect civilian populations.

The methods of the Resistance, while extreme, have left a lasting legacy in anti-oppression strategies. They show how targeted violence, when combined with strategic vision and popular support, can become a powerful lever for transforming power relations and achieving meaningful results, despite considerable constraints.

The 1960s and 1970s: Emergence of international terrorism

The 1960s and 1970s marked an important phase in the evolution of terrorism, where a major distinction emerged between "international terrorism" and "global terrorism". This period was characterized by the internationalization of terrorist claims and actions, although these remained largely confined to the framework of nation-states. Unlike the globalized terrorism of organizations like al-Qaeda, which transcended national borders and was part of a global dynamic, the international terrorism of this era maintained a strong link to national or regionalist objectives, while using means that attracted attention beyond borders.

International terrorism: a nation-state claim

The international terrorism of the 1960s and 1970s is distinguished by its roots in national struggles, although some of its demands may have an internationalist tinge. Organizations of this period, motivated by causes specific to regions or peoples, used spectacular tactics to give their struggles a global resonance. However, their purpose remains centred on objectives related to national liberation, the creation of a state or the self-determination of an oppressed region.

These groups use actions such as hijackings, hostage-takings or targeted attacks not only to inflict damage on their direct enemies, but also to capture media attention and mobilize support beyond their immediate borders.

Founded in 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is a perfect example of this dynamic. Its main objective is the creation of an independent Palestinian state, a demand born of the complex context of colonization, massive displacement of populations and Israeli domination of the Palestinian territories. As part of this struggle, the PLO adopted a strategy to "export" the Palestinian conflict beyond the borders of the Middle East to attract the attention of the international community.

Hijackings became an emblematic tactic of this period. In 1968, the PLO orchestrated the hijacking of an Israeli El Al flight, marking a turning point in the use of violence as a means of international pressure. These acts, while often violent and widely condemned, fulfill their strategic purpose: to put the Palestinian cause in the spotlight, mobilize foreign support, and force international powers to take a position on the issue.

Through this strategy, the PLO transformed a regionalized struggle into a global issue, strengthening its visibility while exposing its members to increased reprisals. Spectacular actions thus become a means of compensating for the asymmetry of forces with their adversaries, especially Israel.

In a different way, the "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA)", active in Spain from 1959, led an armed struggle for the independence of the Basque Country. Unlike the PLO, ETA concentrated its actions mainly on Spanish territory, with targeted attacks and assassinations targeting representatives of the central government. However, his message went beyond Spain's borders, in particular because of the repressive context of the Franco regime and European political tensions.

ETA's actions, often seen as direct responses to Franco's repression, include spectacular attacks, such as the assassination of Spanish Prime Minister Luis Carrero Blanco in 1973. This act, symbolising extreme defiance of the Franco regime, drew the attention of the international community to the Basque question. Like the PLO, ETA uses violence to project its message, although its demands remain closely linked to a regional cause.

The PLO and ETA, although operating in different contexts, exemplify the logic of international terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s: movements centered on national or regionalist demands that resort to violent and spectacular tactics to attract global attention. These organizations share a common understanding of the importance of media coverage of their actions, but their goals differ.

Where the PLO seeks to establish a Palestinian state within an internationalized framework, ETA aims for regional independence within Spain's borders, although its struggle is perceived abroad as an example of resistance to fascism. These differences show that, despite specific goals, these groups exploit similar strategies to transcend the boundaries of their local struggles.

The international terrorism of the 1960s and 1970s, symbolized by organizations like the PLO and ETA, marks a key milestone in the history of political violence. By linking their actions to specific demands while projecting these struggles onto the world stage, these groups are laying the groundwork for a shift towards more globalized forms of terrorism. This period also highlights the challenges of such strategies: while media coverage amplifies their message, it also exposes these movements to increased repression and international condemnation.

These organizations show how violence, when embedded in a national dynamic, can be used to achieve international recognition, even if it is accompanied by controversy and serious consequences. This duality, between the need for visibility and the risks inherent in violence, remains at the heart of debates on terrorism in a modern context.

The export of the struggle: a strategy of visibility

The export of the struggle is based on a fine understanding of media dynamics. These groups know that hijackings, hostage-takings or spectacular attacks quickly capture the attention of the media, amplifying their message far beyond local borders. This media visibility transforms limited actions into a direct impact on world public opinion, sparking debates on the causes and demands of the groups concerned.

However, the media coverage of these acts can have an ambivalent effect. While it makes it possible to legitimize the demands in the eyes of some sympathizers or observers, it can also provoke a unanimous condemnation of violence, reducing these organizations to the image of brutal and illegitimate groups. The tension between the need for publicity and the risk of stigmatization remains a constant challenge for these movements.

The export of wrestling demonstrates the strategic ingenuity of these groups, which manage to transcend their material limitations to position themselves in the international arena. However, this strategy is not without consequences. Spectacular acts, while effective in attracting attention, often isolate groups by reinforcing their overall threat image. This can limit their ability to gain long-term diplomatic or popular support.

Moreover, reprisals against these actions are often disproportionate, resulting in loss of life and hardening of the positions of targeted states. Thus, while exporting the struggle offers immediate gains in terms of visibility, it comes with high costs, both for the organizations responsible and for the populations they claim to represent.

The export of terrorist struggles in the 1960s and 1970s laid the foundations for an approach that endures in modern terrorism. Understanding the impact of the media and global dynamics remains a central element of contemporary terrorist strategies. Current groups, although operating in different contexts, continue to use international visibility as a lever to amplify their influence and project their cause.

A distinction with globalized terrorism

The international terrorism of the 1960s and 1970s is fundamentally different from the globalized terrorism that emerged at the end of the twentieth century, embodied by organizations such as al-Qaeda. Where international terrorism remains rooted in specific claims to nation-states or specific geographical regions, globalized terrorism is characterized by a transnational ideology and universal goals. This evolution reflects a shift from nationalist or regionalist struggles towards ideological ambitions that go beyond traditional borders.

Groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) focus their actions on limited and well-defined demands: the creation of a Palestinian state for the PLO, the independence of the Basque Country for ETA. These struggles, although sometimes projected onto the international stage to attract support, remain deeply rooted in local or regional contexts. The actions of these groups mainly target specific regimes or governments perceived as oppressive, such as Israel in the case of the PLO or Francoist Spain in the case of ETA.

In contrast, organizations like "Al-Qaeda" transcend these geographical and political boundaries to pursue global ideological goals. Their struggle is not limited to the conquest of a territory or the liberation of a people; It aims to establish a world order based on a specific religious or ideological vision. For example, al-Qaeda seeks to establish a global caliphate based on a radical interpretation of Islam, challenging not only local regimes, but also modern international structures.

The distinction between international terrorism and globalized terrorism is also expressed in the choice of targets and methods. International terrorist groups in the 1960s and 1970s often targeted infrastructure, government officials, or institutions directly related to their national claims. The attacks and hijackings orchestrated by the PLO, for example, are aimed at exerting pressure on Israel and its allies while projecting the Palestinian cause into the international arena.

In contrast, globalized terrorism takes a much broader approach to its choice of targets, targeting symbols of global power and civilian populations without distinction. The attacks of September 11, 2001, orchestrated by al-Qaeda, illustrate this strategy: the targets include not only American economic and military infrastructure, but also civilians, marking a desire to challenge the entire Western system perceived as an enemy.

This distinction is also based on an ideological evolution. International terrorism is often based on an ideology rooted in nationalism or regionalism, even when it takes dramatic forms to attract global attention. On the other hand, globalized terrorism favors a universalist ideology, often based on transnational religious or ideological frameworks. This transformation is reflected in organizational structures: where groups such as the PLO or ETA are hierarchical and centralized, globalized organizations such as al-Qaeda often operate in decentralized networks, facilitating their adaptation and global spread.

The distinction between international and globalized terrorism has profound implications for counter-terrorism strategies. International terrorism, although difficult to contain, often remains limited in its scope and objectives. In contrast, globalized terrorism, because of its transnational ideology and its ability to operate in multiple geographical areas, poses much more complex challenges to States and international institutions.

The shift towards a globalized model also reflects a transformation in the means of communication and mobilization, with the increased use of the Internet and social networks to spread messages, recruit and coordinate attacks. This dynamic makes globalized terrorism more difficult to combat, as it is no longer limited to specific territories or actors.

The transition from international terrorism to globalized terrorism illustrates a major shift in the practices and ambitions of terrorist groups. While the terrorism of the 1960s and 1970s remains rooted in specific and local struggles, globalized terrorism reflects a desire to reshape the world order as a whole. This development highlights the ability of terrorist groups to adapt their objectives and methods to an ever-changing international context, posing new challenges for global security.

Legacy and implications

The 1960s and 1970s represent a pivotal stage in the history of terrorism, marked by a transition to more visible and internationalized forms of struggle. The nationalist and regionalist movements of this period, although rooted in local demands, managed to project their causes onto the international stage through spectacular tactics, such as hijackings, bombings or hostage-taking. This period highlights how violence, when strategically mediatised, can amplify the claims of groups that would otherwise have had little visibility.

This period marked an important break with previous forms of political violence. National liberation movements and revolutionary organizations, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or ETA, demonstrate that the media coverage of violent actions can transform localized conflicts into international issues. However, these groups remain linked to specific objectives: the creation of a Palestinian state, the independence of the Basque Country, or the self-determination of oppressed peoples.

Their use of spectacular tactics lays the foundations for a move towards more universal forms of terrorism. By attracting the attention of the international community, these movements illustrate the power of the political message conveyed by violence, while preparing the ground for a new era in which armed struggle transcends state borders to global dimensions.

While the 1960s and 1970s were marked by struggles rooted in national or regional contexts, they also foreshadowed the dynamics of globalized terrorism that would emerge later. The tactics employed – hijackings, media attacks – inspired organizations like al-Qaeda, which adapted these methods on a transnational scale and to universal ideological goals. The ability of these groups to use the media to amplify their demands, influence public opinion, and disrupt power structures is becoming a fundamental feature of contemporary terrorism.

This period highlights both continuities and ruptures in terrorist practices. The continuities manifest themselves in the strategic use of violence to attract attention and in the exploitation of flaws in state systems. The ruptures, on the other hand, are to be found in the transition from terrorism rooted in local demands to globalized terrorism, motivated by transnational ideologies. Where the organizations of the 1960s and 1970s primarily sought to transform specific national contexts, globalized movements aimed to reshape the world order.

Ultimately, the 1960s and 1970s laid the foundations for the dynamics that would characterize terrorism on a global scale in the decades that followed. These decades show that terrorist violence, while rooted in specific political or social struggles, can transcend borders and influence international issues. While the methods used at that time have been adapted and amplified by later organizations, they remain emblematic of an era in which terrorism became not only a weapon of protest, but also a tool for global communication.

The legacy of these movements lies in their ability to demonstrate that terrorism, as a phenomenon, is intrinsically linked to the transformation of power relations, the evolution of communication technologies and the dynamics of international relations. This period remains a key to understanding modern forms of political violence and the challenges they pose to states and international institutions.

The powder keg of the Middle East

World Trade Center towers on fire after impacts from flights AA11 and UA175.

From the 1970s onwards, the Middle East became a major hotbed of tensions and terrorist attacks, reflecting the complexity of the motivations and logics of the various actors in the region. Events such as the attacks on the Munich Olympic Games in 1972 and the attacks by Al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001 illustrate very different approaches to the conduct and objectives of terrorist acts. These two examples show the evolution of terrorism from relatively targeted forms to global attacks with devastating consequences.

The Munich Olympic Games: targeted terrorism

In 1972, the attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics by the Palestinian group Black September was a striking example of international terrorism focused on specific political demands. This group, affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), seeks to draw global attention to the Palestinian cause by using a large-scale sporting event as a media platform. The attack, which resulted in the hostage-taking and death of 11 Israeli athletes, has left a profound mark on the history of contemporary terrorism.

The targets, although civilians, are clearly identified: Israeli athletes symbolically embody the State of Israel, whose policies Black September seeks to denounce. This violent action, carefully orchestrated to coincide with an international event, highlights the strategy of the terrorist groups of the time: to instrumentalize global media platforms to amplify their demands and give international resonance to their struggle.

The Munich attack was part of a logic of symbolic violence: it was not intended to inflict widespread damage but to send a clear political message. By targeting an event followed by millions of spectators around the world, Black September seeks to provoke an immediate reaction from the international community, raise public awareness of the Palestinian situation and exert pressure on Israel and its allies. This strategic choice reflects a keen understanding of media dynamics, where global attention becomes as powerful a weapon as violence itself.

However, this appalling attack remains rooted in an era in which terrorism, while spectacular, generally spares civilians not directly involved in conflicts. This approach is based on the idea that the support of local or international populations is essential to legitimize the struggle and avoid unanimous condemnation. By sparing civilians who are far from the conflict, terrorist groups seek to maintain popular support, both locally and internationally.

The Munich attack has profound consequences for the way terrorism is perceived and combated. On the one hand, it highlights the ability of terrorist groups to manipulate international events to serve their goals, turning a sporting event into a stage of global political demand. On the other hand, it exposes the limits of this strategy: although the attack drew significant attention to the Palestinian cause, it also led to widespread condemnation and strengthened the resolve of states to fight terrorism.

In response to this attack, Israel launched Operation "Wrath of God," a covert campaign to track down and eliminate those responsible for Black September. This event thus marks an escalation in the confrontation between terrorist groups and states, where violent actions and retaliation become central elements of international relations.

The Munich Olympic Games show how media coverage is becoming an essential component of terrorist strategies. By capturing global attention, Black September manages to make the Palestinian struggle a topic of global discussion, although this visibility comes with increased stigmatization. This tension between the search for recognition and the negative consequences on the image of terrorist groups remains a constant in the history of terrorism.

Ultimately, the Munich attack marks an important milestone in the evolution of international terrorism. It illustrates a transition to forms of violence where visibility and symbolism play as crucial a role as the damage inflicted. This event, while appalling, highlights how terrorist groups of the time used global platforms to amplify their claims, while revealing the limitations and ambiguities of these strategies.

September 11, 2001: a paradigm shift

The attacks of September 11, 2001, orchestrated by "Al-Qaeda", mark a profound break in the history of modern terrorism. These attacks, which target the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, redefine traditional terrorist logics by moving from targeted and localized terrorism to a global and ideological strategy. The objective goes beyond simple political or territorial claims: it is a question of establishing global terror, destabilizing a superpower and reshaping international relations according to a transnational ideological vision.

This operation, carried out with relatively rudimentary means – the hijacking of four airliners – illustrates a sophisticated understanding of global dynamics. The attacks do not only target American economic and military symbols; they are part of a logic of force against the entire Western system, which is considered hostile to Islam according to the rhetoric of Al-Qaeda.

9/11 ushers in a new era of indiscriminate violence, in which civilians become primary targets, regardless of their role or direct involvement in a conflict. Unlike the terrorism of previous decades, which often avoided hitting uninvolved civilians in order to maintain some popular support, al-Qaeda explicitly rejects this distinction. Bin Laden's "fatwa," issued in 1998 and reaffirmed before the attacks, clarifies this position: according to him, all citizens of the United States, as members of a society perceived as aggressive toward Islam, are responsible and therefore legitimate targets.

This ideology, which denies the status of the innocent, reflects a binary and absolute view of the world, where violence is not only justified, but also glorified as a means of re-establishing a global ideological order. Al-Qaeda's calls for Muslims to leave the United States before the attacks underscore this logic: the organization seeks to project an image of justice and accountability while asserting its universalist vision of the conflict.

The attacks of 11 September also marked a change in the scale and scope of terrorism. Unlike previous attacks, which were often limited to a regional or national context, these acts have an immediate global impact. The destruction of the World Trade Center towers and the attack on the Pentagon symbolize not only an unexpected vulnerability of the United States, but also a willingness to challenge the entire international order. The human losses, combined with the scale of the destruction and the overall media coverage of the events, reinforce the psychological and political impact of the attacks.

These attacks also usher in a new dynamic in the way terrorism is perceived and combated. The United States and its allies, faced with a threat of unprecedented magnitude, responded with a series of military, legislative and security measures, marking the beginning of the "war on terror". This response, while effective in some respects, contributes to prolonging the cycle of violence by stirring up new tensions and fuelling the anti-Western rhetoric of terrorist groups.

9/11 also reflects a change in the means and objectives of globalized terrorist groups. Al-Qaeda, by relying on modern technologies, including the media and communication networks, amplifies the impact of its actions far beyond its immediate targets. The images of the burning towers, broadcast live around the world, transform the attacks into a global media event, amplifying the reach of their ideological message.

Moreover, these attacks highlight a change in the objectives of terrorist groups: it is no longer just a question of striking a state or claiming territory, but of reshaping perceptions and power relations on a global scale. This strategy, which emphasizes psychological and symbolic impact, distinguishes globalized terrorism from the more localized and targeted forms that have predominated until now.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 marked a decisive turning point in the history of terrorism, redefining its objectives, targets and methods. They usher in an era in which violence becomes a global ideological weapon, transcending traditional borders and distinctions between civilians and combatants. By rejecting the concept of innocence and targeting entire populations, al-Qaeda imposes a deeply divided and Manichean worldview.

These events underscore the emergence of globalized terrorism, marked by a transnational ideology and an ability to exploit the flaws in global security systems. They also pose unprecedented challenges to states and international institutions, which face a threat that is no longer limited to specific territories or claims, but is part of a global ideological dynamic, deeply rooted in the tensions of the twenty-first century.

Globalized insecurity

The attacks of September 11, 2001 marked the beginning of a new era of global insecurity. Unlike the terrorism of previous decades, which was often limited to specific regions or identified targets, these attacks demonstrate that the threat can strike anywhere, indiscriminately affecting civilians and symbolic infrastructure. Al-Qaeda thus inaugurated a form of transnational violence that transcended geographical borders and local logics, imposing a new reality: no one, regardless of their position, was truly immune.

The global nature of the September 11 attacks reflects a profound transformation of terrorist dynamics. While previous forms of international terrorism remained limited to nationalist or regionalist struggles, al-Qaeda's actions are part of a transnational ideological logic. Their global reach, combined with an ability to exploit vulnerabilities in global systems, introduces pervasive insecurity that transcends traditional distinctions between combatants and civilians.

The abandonment of tactics sparing the uninvolved populations amplifies this insecurity. Unlike the groups of the 1960s or 1970s, which often sought to preserve the support of local or international populations, globalized terrorist movements such as al-Qaeda now view civilians as legitimate targets. This evolution radically transforms the perception of violence: it is no longer just a tool for political or strategic demands, but a weapon aimed at creating a generalized climate of fear.

This globalized insecurity is also based on the deliberate integration of civilians into terrorist strategies. The populations, once spared to avoid losing potential support, are becoming central actors: they are used either as targets, as human shields or as propaganda elements. Civilians are no longer passive spectators of violence; they become direct victims or instruments, their suffering serving to maximize the psychological impact of the attacks.

The attacks of September 11 are a striking example of this. By targeting iconic locations, such as the World Trade Center towers, frequented by civilians of various nationalities, al-Qaeda sends a clear message that all citizens of a state or system perceived as hostile can be targeted. This approach transforms the terrorist threat into a pervasive reality, not limited to conflict zones or specific groups.

The emergence of this globalized insecurity also reflects the evolution of the tools and objectives of contemporary terrorist groups. Access to modern technologies, including global communication networks, allows fear to spread far beyond the areas directly affected. The real-time dissemination of images of the September 11 attacks, for example, transforms these attacks into a global media event, creating a generalized feeling of vulnerability.

This transformation is not limited to al-Qaeda: it extends to other globalized terrorist organizations, which are adopting similar tactics to exploit the flaws of modern societies. Fear is no longer confined to a region or a group: it is becoming a universal component of life in the twenty-first century.

The attacks of 11 September have profoundly changed the way terrorism is perceived and combated. In the face of globalized insecurity, states and international institutions must rethink their approaches to prevention and response. Traditional counter-terrorism strategies, centred on regional contexts or specific claims, appear insufficient to respond to transnational and ideological threats.

This globalized insecurity marks a turning point in international relations, where terrorist violence is becoming a collective challenge requiring coordinated responses on a global scale. This reality, introduced by al-Qaeda's attacks, continues to shape security policies, risk perceptions, and state-to-state relations in an increasingly interconnected world.

A persistent threat

The rise of globalized terrorist groups such as "Al-Qaeda" or, later, the "Islamic State", demonstrates that terrorism is a lasting threat, deeply rooted in contemporary dynamics. The varied motivations – whether ideological, political or religious – and the ability of these organizations to exploit modern technologies to plan, coordinate and execute their attacks make their eradication extremely complex. This phenomenon requires the inhabitants of the twenty-first century to adapt to a latent insecurity, very different from the more localized forms of terrorism that dominated previous decades.

Modern terrorism is characterized by indiscriminate violence, targeting civilians indiscriminately to maximize the psychological impact. In contrast to the strategies of the groups of the 1960s or 1970s, which often avoided targeting civilian populations in order to preserve popular support, contemporary organizations now consider civilians as priority targets. This evolution reflects a transformation of tactics: where violence was primarily used to draw attention to a cause, it is becoming a central instrument for sowing fear and confusion in increasingly interconnected societies.

Al-Qaeda attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001, or coordinated attacks by the Islamic State in Europe, such as in Paris in 2015, illustrate this approach. These actions are aimed at destabilizing entire societies, breaking citizens' trust in their institutions, and fueling feelings of division and mistrust. The magnitude of the psychological impacts often exceeds the property damage or immediate loss of life, underscoring the symbolic effectiveness of these attacks.

Globalized terrorist groups also rely on technological advances to amplify their reach and influence. The use of the Internet and social networks not only makes it possible to coordinate attacks from a distance, but also to spread ideological messages, recruit followers and inspire isolated actions. This ability to mobilize individuals or autonomous cells, often without direct contact with the central organization, makes the threat even more unpredictable and difficult to contain.

The Islamic State, for example, has demonstrated unprecedented mastery of these tools, combining online propaganda, recruitment videos, and encrypted messages to extend its influence beyond the territories it physically controls. This approach, which is part of a logic of globalized terrorism, makes it possible to transcend geographical limits and maintain an active presence despite military setbacks.

The persistence of these organizations underscores a fundamental shift in the way modern societies should think about security. Terrorism has evolved from a regional or one-time threat to a global issue, affecting every aspect of contemporary life, from international travel to cybersecurity. State responses, often limited to military or repressive approaches, struggle to adapt to the fluid and decentralized nature of these groups.

In addition, this persistent threat exacerbates social and political tensions, fueling polarizing narratives and reinforcing distrust towards certain communities perceived to be linked to these movements. The impacts go far beyond the attacks themselves, affecting social, political and economic balances on a global scale.

Faced with this reality, twenty-first century societies must adapt to a context in which terrorism cannot be entirely eradicated. This latent insecurity requires constant vigilance, both at the level of individuals and institutions. It also requires increased international cooperation, not only to prevent attacks, but also to address the root causes that fuel these movements: social marginalization, unresolved conflicts, and ideological propaganda.

Ultimately, the evolution of terrorist dynamics, marked by amplified violence and the exploitation of modern technologies, reflects a lasting transformation of the threat. Where localized terrorism could once be contained or contained, globalized forms pose new challenges, requiring multidimensional responses adapted to a threat that transcends traditional borders and systems.

Tensions in the Middle East, combined with the emergence of globalized terrorist actors, show that the region remains a powder keg whose consequences extend far beyond its borders. The evolution of terrorism from strategic targeting to indiscriminate violence illustrates a profound transformation of modern conflicts. These dynamics, inaugurated by events such as the Munich and September 11 attacks, continue to shape the way the world perceives and responds to the terrorist threat.

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has become a pervasive reality, inscribed in a globalized context where physical and ideological boundaries are blurring. This new form of violence requires a rethinking of strategies to combat it, taking into account the psychological impact and the increasing complexity of the motivations and actors involved.

Institutional definitions: an impossible consensus

Terrorism remains an elusive concept for international institutions, unable to agree on a universal definition. This lack of consensus stems from the deeply subjective nature of the term, which is often used to disqualify an opponent's actions. This semantic vagueness is reinforced by an intrinsic tension: what is described as terrorism by some may be perceived as legitimate resistance by others. The immediate impossibility of reaching a universal definition stems from this ambivalence, where the word elicits various reactions ranging from antipathy to empathy, even to a certain indulgence.

In the institutional framework, the only way to define terrorism seems to be in the negative, focusing on what it is not. This approach reflects the inability of States and international institutions to produce an all-encompassing and universal definition that would transcend political, cultural and ideological differences. This difficulty is intrinsic to the term "terrorism", which is deeply subjective and often used as a rhetorical tool to discredit the adversary while legitimizing one's own position. This semantic vagueness contributes to the ambiguity and polarization of the concept.

The "terrorism" of some thus becomes the "resistance" of others. This semantic shift illustrates an intrinsic subjectivity: a violent act perceived as legitimate in one context can be qualified as terrorist in another. This duality prevents a consensual definition, as the term itself is often used as a weapon in political or ideological conflicts. This subjectivity reinforces the conflictual nature of any attempt at definition: it is never neutral, but reflects the interests and perspectives of the parties involved.

The use of the word "terrorism" goes beyond mere description: it aims to morally and politically disqualify the actions of a group or individual. By labelling an adversary as a terrorist, a state or an institution seeks to invalidate its legitimacy, to reduce its claims to simple acts of indiscriminate violence. This disqualifying function explains why the term is rarely claimed by the actors themselves, who prefer to present themselves as resistance fighters, freedom fighters or defenders of a noble cause.

This negative approach highlights an institutional impasse: any attempt at a definition is inevitably marked by political power relations and ideological divergences. International institutions, anxious to maintain a certain neutrality, often avoid engaging in a debate that could clash with the sovereign interests of States. This posture leaves a conceptual vacuum, which contributes to the fragmentation of responses to terrorism and complicates international coordination.

The negative approach illustrates the complexity of defining a phenomenon as polymorphous as terrorism. While this approach avoids the pitfalls of a rigid or biased definition, it fails to provide a solid basis for collective action. Terrorism, as a concept, remains elusive: it reflects less an objective reality than a political and ideological construction, shaped by the conflicts and contexts in which it is invoked. This ambivalence constitutes both an analytical richness and a source of institutional confusion.

The role of positive law and its limits

In its quest for universal rationality, positive law strives to provide a legal basis for qualifying terrorism. However, this ambition comes up against the inherent limits of the law itself, which is the product of power relations specific to a given period. The evolution of the law is often slow and incomplete, unable to keep up with the growing complexity of terrorist dynamics and societal changes. This discrepancy between reality and legal frameworks contributes to the persistent vagueness surrounding the concept of terrorism.

Since the 1930s, efforts have been made to enshrine terrorism within a legal framework. During the "Third Confederation for the Unification of Criminal Law", an attempt was made to define terrorism as:

"The intentional use of all means capable of causing a common danger." '

This definition, although initial, remained insufficient to impose itself in the long term. Its vague formulation, which does not distinguish between intentions and contexts from acts, reflects an embryonic approach that lacks the precision necessary to meet the demands of international relations. This attempt nevertheless shows a first awareness of the need to legally regulate this complex phenomenon.

The extension of these reflections reached a major turning point with the "League of Nations (League)", in response to the assassination of Alexander I of Serbia in Marseilles in 1934. This event calls for a common definition of terrorism to be sought in a multilateral framework. Two proposals stemming from the 1937 international conventions, ratified by 25 States (with the notable exception of the "United States" and "Italy"), are formulated:

1. 'Criminal acts directed against a State and the purpose or nature of which is to provoke terror in specific personalities, groups of persons or in the public.
2. "Acts directed against the lives of heads of state as well as against the destruction of public property or property intended for public use."

These definitions introduce concrete elements, including emphasis on the targets and intentions of terrorist acts. However, they limit responsibility for terrorism to a state level, thus excluding other actors, such as non-state groups or transnational organizations, that play an increasing role in modern terrorist dynamics.

These first attempts at a definition reveal the limits of positive law in its approach to terrorism. By focusing responsibility on "nation-states", they ignore the diversity of actors and motivations that underlie contemporary terrorism. Moreover, these definitions are too rigid to adapt to the rapid changes in terrorist practices, including the emergence of globalized organizations such as Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, which transcend national borders and challenge traditional legal frameworks.

The failure to include these new forms of terrorism reflects a structural gap in international law, which struggles to respond to ever-changing phenomena. The definitions proposed by the League of Nations, although historically significant, remain rooted in a vision of terrorism as a phenomenon limited to conflicts between states or internal aggression.

Positive law, in seeking to produce a universal rationality, reveals its own contradictions. The attempt to define terrorism shows that the law is as much a product of the needs and tensions of an era as it is a tool for sustainable regulation. These first definitions, although imperfect, underline the difficulty of legally capturing a phenomenon as polymorphous and evolving as terrorism.

Positive law does not succeed in establishing a sufficiently precise and encompassing definition of terrorism. Its structural limitations, combined with sovereignty issues and political differences between states, contribute to perpetuating a legal limbo that makes the fight against terrorism at the international level fragmented and often ineffective.

The nation-state and sovereignty

The failure of international institutions to establish a universal definition of terrorism is deeply rooted in the principle of the sovereignty of nation-States. Any attempt at a precise definition may upset some countries, not least because of the implications it could have on their domestic policies or international relations. Nation-states, anxious to preserve their autonomy, often refuse to cede their exclusive control over internal security issues. This reluctance significantly hampers international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, limiting the effectiveness of collective efforts.

This dynamic is not new. Already under the League of Nations, states jealously guarded their sovereignty, insisting on their exclusive right to determine the means of combating terrorism on their territory. The international conventions proposed at the time, although introducing elements of definition, did not succeed in overcoming this resistance. The nation-state approach reflected a time when security was perceived as a strictly national prerogative, making any form of delegation or substantive international cooperation difficult.

This historical resistance led to a gradual abandonment of efforts to define terrorism within the League. Tensions between national sovereignty and multilateral cooperation persisted, preventing the formulation of a common vision.

This logic of protecting sovereignty remains just as significant in the modern era. Even within international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), which succeeded the League of Nations, the question of a universal definition of terrorism has not been the subject of in-depth reflection. The UN, aware of the tensions that this could generate, has avoided engaging in a debate that could weaken its relations with member states.

Even today, systems for information exchange and cooperation in the fight against terrorism are often hampered by the desire of States to maintain their control over their security. This fragmentation reduces the effectiveness of international efforts and illustrates the limits of multilateral approaches to a global threat.

The insistence on national sovereignty creates a paradox: although terrorism is a transnational threat requiring a coordinated response, nation-states remain reluctant to harmonize their approaches or share sensitive information. Any attempt at a universal definition of terrorism is seen as a potential attack on sovereignty, as it could involve interference in national policies or a questioning of the practices of certain regimes.

In addition, a universal definition could raise controversies by legitimizing or delegitimizing certain struggles, especially those qualified as resistance by their authors. This reality reinforces the mistrust of States towards any initiative that could compromise their strategic or political interests.

Ultimately, the sovereignty of nation-states is a major obstacle to building an international consensus on the definition of terrorism. This blockage illustrates the tensions inherent in the international system, where national priorities often take precedence over global needs. As long as this logic prevails, international institutions will continue to face resistance, limiting their ability to propose coordinated and effective responses to a global threat.

This impasse highlights the fundamental challenges of the fight against terrorism: a globalized phenomenon that is being addressed with tools and structures anchored in a fragmented state framework. This paradox underscores the need to rethink the mechanisms of international cooperation to overcome the limits imposed by the sovereignty of States.

A persistent institutional problem

The failure of international institutions to define terrorism universally reflects a fundamental problem: the concept remains too vague, too politicized and too dependent on national interpretations to be the subject of consensus. This lack of clarity stems from the inherently subjective nature of the term "terrorism", often used to disqualify adversaries or legitimize state actions. In this context, each State adapts the definition of terrorism to its own strategic priorities and political needs, creating a fragmented and incoherent landscape.

This flexibility in the interpretation of the term gives states some latitude to respond to specific threats or justify internal policies. However, it is also a major obstacle to international cooperation. The lack of a common definition prevents the development of harmonized legal and operational frameworks, limiting the ability of international actors to coordinate their efforts in the fight against terrorism. This fragmentation is particularly visible in multilateral initiatives, where diverging views hinder the effectiveness of collective responses.

The lack of consensus around the definition of terrorism also reflects the deep tensions between national sovereignty, political interests and legal rationality. States, anxious to preserve their autonomy and control over internal security issues, are reluctant to adopt a universal definition that could limit their room for manoeuvre. Moreover, the inclusion of such a definition in an international legal framework would risk being perceived as interference in national affairs or as a challenge to certain State practices.

This tension illustrates a fundamental contradiction: although terrorism is a transnational threat requiring a collective response, current legal and political structures remain rooted in state logics. This dissonance not only hinders international cooperation, but also limits the ability of institutions to adapt to the changing dynamics of contemporary terrorism.

The failure to define terrorism universally perpetuates fragmentation in responses to terrorism. Each State, depending on its priorities and context, adopts strategies and policies that are often incompatible with those of its international partners. This heterogeneity weakens collective efforts and reinforces the perception that the fight against terrorism is influenced more by political considerations than by shared objectives.

This lack of coordination is particularly visible in areas such as information sharing, attack prevention and crisis management. Multilateral initiatives, while essential, struggle to overcome the structural and conceptual differences that hinder their effectiveness.

This persistent institutional problem remains a major challenge for international relations. Terrorism, as a globalized phenomenon, requires collective and concerted responses; However, the lack of a common definition is a significant obstacle to the emergence of such responses. The fight against terrorism continues to be hampered by structural and conceptual divergences, which reflect the limits of an international system still largely dominated by state logics.

This failure to overcome the tensions between national sovereignty and international cooperation underscores the need to rethink current institutional and legal frameworks. The fight against terrorism, in order to be effective, must go beyond political divisions and vested interests, based on a truly comprehensive and inclusive approach. However, as long as these differences persist, institutional issues will remain at the heart of the challenges posed by terrorism in an interconnected world.

How was terrorism defined in international conventions between the 1960s and the 1980s?

Between the 1960s and 1980s, international conventions addressed terrorism mainly through the acts themselves, without dwelling on the motivations or underlying claims. This pragmatic approach aims to circumvent the political obstacles and ideological differences that make it difficult to establish a universal definition. Thus, the word "terrorism" reappears in international legal texts to designate specific situations, particularly in response to growing threats to international security, such as the hijackings of planes in the 1970s.

The first conventions: a response to the actions

Between "1963" and "1979", the international community adopted twelve conventions aimed at providing a legal framework for certain forms of terrorist acts, without, however, attempting to define the concept of terrorism as a whole. These laws focus on specific threats, such as attacks on aircraft or hostage-taking, and seek to establish legal frameworks to prevent and punish such actions.

This period illustrates a pragmatic and fragmentary approach, where each convention strives to respond to a specific problem. Rather than confronting the controversies linked to a general definition of terrorism, States opt for a targeted strategy, making it possible to circumvent the political and ideological divergences that complicate any global consensus.

By choosing to deal with terrorism through its most concrete manifestations, these conventions reflect the immediate priorities of the 1960s and 1970s: to respond to spectacular and disruptive acts, while avoiding the pitfalls of a controversial definition that could weaken international cooperation. This choice, although effective in regulating certain behaviours, nevertheless leaves the concept of terrorism in a grey area, where it continues to give rise to debate and uncertainty.

Attempts at definition in the 1980s

In the 1980s, efforts were made to define terrorism on an international scale, but they were quickly met with reluctance by states. In 1987, the UN proposed to organize a conference to establish a universal definition of international terrorism. This initiative fails in the face of the refusal of many states to engage in a debate perceived as politically and diplomatically sensitive. This reluctance reflects the tensions between the need for a global legal framework and the ideological, cultural and political divergences between nations.

Despite this failure, the term "terrorism" is beginning to appear more frequently in treaty law. While the conventions of previous decades avoided using it explicitly, the 1990s marked a turning point with more specific texts. The "International Convention for the Suppression of Bombings of 1997" is particularly noteworthy: it explicitly includes the word "terrorism", which reflects an increased awareness of the need to name and legally qualify this phenomenon.

This progress, although important, remains limited in its ambition: rather than providing a general definition of terrorism, these texts continue to focus on specific acts. They reflect a desire to combat certain forms of international violence while avoiding the complex and polarizing debates that a global definition might generate. In this sense, the attempts of the 1980s and 1990s show a gradual, but fragmented, progress in the integration of the concept of terrorism into international law.

Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, international conventions made a fundamental distinction between "terrorism" and "military conflict". Terrorism is characterized as an action targeting civilians or persons not directly involved in hostilities, while military conflict concerns clashes between "nation-states", governed by international law and framed by conventions such as those of Geneva. This distinction reflects a desire to separate acts of non-state violence from military actions recognized as legitimate in the context of conventional wars.

An emblematic formulation of this distinction is found in the following definition:

"Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to any civilian person or any other person not taking a direct part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, where by its nature or context, This act is intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to perform or refrain from performing any act." '

This definition highlights two fundamental elements of terrorism: its asymmetric and non-state nature. Unlike acts of warfare between regular armies, terrorism relies on irregular tactics, often carried out by groups or individuals seeking to compensate for their material and strategic inferiority in the face of more powerful forces. By targeting civilians, critical infrastructure or symbols of power, terrorists seek to maximize the psychological and political impact of their actions.

This distinction also underscores the specific intentionality of terrorism: where traditional military conflicts aim to achieve territorial or strategic gains, terrorism often aims to "intimidate", "manipulate public opinion" or "coerce governments" to change policy. These objectives, combined with the absence of a State framework, clearly distinguish terrorist acts from legitimate armed conflicts.

Although this separation between terrorism and military conflict is essential to provide a legal framework for acts of violence, it is not without limitations. Grey areas are on the rise, especially in contexts where non-state groups participate in civil wars or use terrorist tactics in armed conflicts. In addition, some States themselves resort to terrorist methods, further blurring the boundaries between these categories.

This distinction nevertheless reflects an important attempt by international conventions to clarify the rules applicable to different types of violence, in particular to protect civilians and to ensure a certain ethics in the conduct of armed conflict. Despite its shortcomings, it remains a pillar of international law, which continues to evolve to adapt to the new realities of modern conflicts.

Conventions on financing and attacks

The 1990s represented a significant milestone in the international fight against terrorism, marked by the development of legal frameworks aimed at targeting the support structures of terrorist groups. Among these initiatives, the "International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism" adopted in "1999" stands out as a major turning point. The Convention establishes mechanisms to prevent and suppress financial flows that fuel terrorism, considering that economic resources are essential for the planning and execution of terrorist acts.

This convention reflects a growing recognition of the need for a systemic approach in the fight against terrorism. Rather than being limited to the terrorist acts themselves, it broadens the scope of state action to include the "supporting infrastructure" that makes these acts possible: financing, logistics, and support networks. By criminalizing terrorist financing, even when the funds are not directly linked to a specific attack, the convention seeks to disrupt supply chains and weaken the operational capacity of terrorist groups.

The 1999 Convention also imposes an obligation of international cooperation between States, including in the area of information exchange, extradition of suspects and seizure of financial assets related to terrorism. It marks an important evolution in the recognition of the interconnectedness of terrorist activities and the importance of a coordinated response to counter these global threats.

By adopting a systemic perspective, the conventions of the 1990s laid the groundwork for a multidimensional fight against terrorism, where acts of violence were no longer seen as isolated events but as the product of complex ecosystems. This approach not only targets the perpetrators of attacks, but also attacks the structures that support them, contributing to a more comprehensive and sustainable strategy.

However, despite these advances, the implementation of the provisions of the 1999 Convention remains a challenge. Disparities in national legal systems, political resistance and the complexity of international financial networks make it difficult to apply these measures uniformly. In addition, terrorist groups adapt by using informal channels or modern technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, to circumvent restrictions.

The 1999 Convention nevertheless constitutes a milestone in the history of international efforts against terrorism. It reflects an awareness of the need to move beyond reactive responses to a proactive strategy aimed at dismantling the very foundations of terrorist activities. The text also marks a step forward towards closer international cooperation, although the challenges of applying and adapting to technological developments continue to limit its effectiveness.

The role of the UN after 9/11

The attacks of September 11, 2001 marked a major turning point in the United Nations (UN)' commitment against terrorism. These events aroused unanimous international condemnation, but did not immediately lead to a universal and precise definition of the concept. This lack of consensus reflects the political and ideological tensions surrounding the notion of terrorism, even in the context of a global emergency.

Adopted on "September 12, 2001", the "UN Security Council Resolution 1368" strongly condemns the attacks and reaffirms the right of States to self-defense in the face of such attacks. However, it avoids precisely qualifying the concept of "global terrorism", relying on general language to ensure the support of members. This choice, while effective in mobilising an immediate response, underlines the persistent vagueness around the definition of terrorism, which continues to divide member states.

Two weeks later, on September 28, 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which strengthened international efforts to combat the financing of terrorism and improve cooperation between states. This resolution requires States to:

• Criminalize the financing of terrorism.
• Freezing the assets of individuals and entities involved in terrorist activities.
• Sharing information about terrorist networks.
• Strengthen border controls to prevent the movement of terrorists.

However, like the previous resolution, it avoids providing a universal definition of terrorism. This pragmatic approach aims to circumvent disagreements between States, but it leaves open the fundamental question of the legal characterization of the phenomenon.

The role of the United Nations after 11 September illustrates a pragmatic approach, focused on concrete measures rather than conceptual debates. By focusing on immediate actions, such as the fight against financing or the strengthening of international cooperation, the UN manages to mobilize states around common objectives. However, this piecemeal strategy perpetuates ambiguity around the definition of terrorism, limiting the scope of collective efforts.

The absence of a universal definition of terrorism in the post-9/11 resolutions reflects the deep tensions within the UN. Divergences between states, whether political, cultural or geostrategic, make any attempt at definition likely to further polarize the international community. Therefore, although the United Nations has played a central role in responding to the attacks, its failure to clarify the concept of terrorism limits the effectiveness and coherence of its actions.

The role of the United Nations after 11 September underscores the importance of a multilateral response to global terrorist threats, while highlighting the institutional challenges associated with the lack of consensus on the definition of terrorism. Resolutions 1368 and 1373, although essential for laying the foundations for enhanced international cooperation, reflect the limits of a UN framework still marked by the logic of national sovereignty and ideological divergences. This situation continues to pose a major challenge to the development of a comprehensive and coherent strategy against terrorism.

A pragmatic and limited approach

Between the 1960s and 1980s, international conventions took a pragmatic approach to their treatment of terrorism, focusing on specific acts such as hijackings or hostage-taking, rather than an attempt at a universal definition of the concept. This strategy made it possible to circumvent the political and ideological tensions of the time, marked by deep divergences between States as to the nature and motivations of terrorist acts.

The conventions reflect a desire to respond to specific threats without calling into question the national sovereignty of States. This contextual orientation aims to preserve a delicate balance between international cooperation and the autonomy of States in the management of their internal security. It also illustrates a time when immediate priorities take precedence over the search for a global consensus.

While these conventions have made significant progress in the fight against certain forms of terrorism, they also reveal the limits of a fragmented international system. By failing to propose an all-encompassing definition of terrorism, these agreements leave a legal limbo that complicates cooperation between States. The lack of a global consensus prevents the development of coherent and coordinated frameworks to effectively combat a transnational threat.

This fragmentation, while understandable in a context of divergent priorities, weakens the ability of international institutions to provide comprehensive responses to an ever-changing phenomenon. The choice of a pragmatic approach, while meeting immediate needs, limits the possibilities for developing a sustainable and unified strategy.

Ultimately, this pragmatic approach reflects the political and diplomatic constraints of an era in which states favor ad hoc solutions over systemic thinking. It underlines the importance of preserving national sovereignty while striving to respond to global challenges. However, it also highlights the need for a move towards more integrated international frameworks capable of addressing terrorism in all its complexity and transnational dimensions.

This period thus leaves an ambivalent legacy: useful legal bases for dealing with certain aspects of terrorism, but a lack of global vision to anticipate and respond to changes in the phenomenon, particularly with the emergence of forms of globalized terrorism from the 1990s onwards.

The same difficulties of definition appear in approaches by national legislation

September 11, 2001 marked a profound break in the perception and definition of terrorism throughout the world, particularly with George W. Bush's declaration of a "war against terrorism". This approach radically transforms the way terrorism is conceptualized, rendering pre-existing frameworks obsolete and exacerbating divergences between national laws.

Any attempt to define terrorism depends on how each country perceives the threat and its legal and political context. This variability is evident in national approaches, where each piece of legislation reflects specific priorities and sensitivities, without arriving at a universal definition.

National approaches: divergent definitions

National legislation provides definitions of terrorism that reflect country-specific sensitivities and priorities, illustrating notable divergences in the interpretation and characterization of this phenomenon. These variations, although adapted to particular contexts, complicate international cooperation and highlight the lack of a universal definition.

France: emphasis on public order

In France, the law of 9 November 1986 defines terrorism as:

'Individual or collective undertakings whose aim is to seriously disturb public order by intimidation or terror.

This definition emphasizes the immediate consequences of terrorist acts, namely their ability to seriously disturb public order through the use of fear and intimidation. By focusing on the impact of actions, the law avoids specifying the "political, ideological or religious motivations" that may underlie these acts. This omission allows for flexibility in interpretation, but also limits the analytical scope of the definition.

The choice to focus on the impact on public order reflects a desire to protect institutions, social stability and collective security in the face of violent threats. This definition is above all pragmatic, oriented towards the repression of behaviours likely to generate insecurity and instability. By focusing on the consequences of acts, rather than their motivations, French legislation adopts a utilitarian approach that facilitates the identification and prosecution of terrorist activities.

While this approach allows for responsiveness to a variety of threats, it also has limitations. By not explicitly taking into account the ideologies or claims of the perpetrators, it does not make it possible to clearly differentiate terrorism from other forms of mob violence, such as riots or criminal acts motivated by personal interests. This can lead to ambiguity in the characterization of acts and groups, sometimes blurring the lines between terrorism, radical activism and organized crime.

The French definition, while operational and focused on preserving public order, reflects the broader challenges of conceptualizing terrorism within a legal framework. It illustrates a pragmatic, but also partial, approach that does not fully capture the complexity of the motivations and dynamics underlying terrorist acts. This choice of functional simplicity, although effective in some contexts, shows its limits when it comes to understanding the broader political and ideological dimensions of contemporary terrorism.

The United States: Focus on Indiscriminate Violence

In the United States, the Public Law of December 22, 1987 defines terrorist activities as:

><' insisting on their "indiscriminate" nature and the seriousness of the violence inflicted. Unlike other approaches that take into account the ideological or political motivations of the perpetrators, American legislation favors a description based on the "direct consequences of the actions," including their impact on civilians.

The emphasis on the acts themselves reflects a "pragmatic" vision, where the seriousness of the consequences, more than the intention or justification of the perpetrators, is at the heart of the definition. This perspective makes it possible to target a wide range of violent behaviors, whether motivated by political or religious ideologies, or purely opportunistic.

By focusing on indiscriminateness and gratuitous violence, U.S. law seeks to criminalize actions with disproportionate consequences and targeting populations not involved in armed conflict. This approach thus highlights a desire to protect civilians and maintain order, while avoiding complex debates around the motives of terrorists.

While this definition facilitates the suppression of terrorist acts by providing a relatively broad framework, it also has limitations. By not explicitly taking into account the "intentions" or "underlying ideologies", it risks missing an essential dimension of terrorism: its strategic or symbolic objective. This omission can complicate the analysis of the motivations of terrorist groups and limit understanding of the ideological dynamics that underlie them.

The U.S. definition also reflects U.S. priorities for "homeland security." By focusing on the acts themselves, the law provides legal flexibility that allows for a rapid response to a variety of terrorist threats, without entering into debates about the legitimacy or justification of actions. This choice is particularly suited to a context marked by a diversity of threats, ranging from domestic attacks to transnational terrorist acts.

The American approach, focused on "indiscriminate violence", highlights a "reactive" and "adaptable" vision of terrorism. While this perspective facilitates the identification and prosecution of terrorist acts, it also reflects the challenges of conceptualizing the phenomenon, leaving aside fundamental elements such as political or ideological objectives. This operational pragmatism, while functional, illustrates the continuing tensions between the need to respond quickly to threats and the complexity of an all-encompassing definition of terrorism.

Germany: an indirect approach via terrorist associations

In Germany, the legislation is distinguished by its indirect approach to terrorism, focusing mainly on "terrorist associations". These are defined as:

'><' This method reflects a pragmatic strategy, aimed at attacking collective actors and their offences, rather than entering into the complex debate on the nature of terrorism itself.

This approach emphasizes the "responsibility of groups" in the planning and perpetration of terrorist acts. Rather than identifying the ideological motivations or specific intentions behind actions, German law seeks to link specific criminal offenses to the organizational structures that support them. This strategy allows for "targeted criminalization," where the focus is on preventing terrorist activities by dismantling the organizations responsible.

The German approach is part of a "preventive" logic, aimed at reducing the operational capacity of terrorist groups. By criminalizing the associations themselves, even when they are not directly involved in acts of violence, the legal framework allows networks to be targeted before they take action. This method, while pragmatic, also reflects a certain flexibility, avoiding debates on a universal definition of terrorism while allowing for an effective crackdown on related activities.

However, this focus on associations has limitations. By not providing a precise definition of terrorism, the legislation may lack clarity in some cases, particularly when it comes to the qualification of isolated acts or individuals acting autonomously. Moreover, this indirect approach can leave areas unclear as to the ideological or political nature of the offences, thus limiting the understanding of the underlying dynamics of terrorism.

The German approach reflects a balance between "legal pragmatism" and "operational efficiency". By focusing on terrorist associations, it offers a suitable framework for the fight against organized groups, while avoiding complex conceptual debates. However, it leaves key questions, such as the definition of the motivations or objectives of terrorists, unresolved, thus highlighting the persistent challenges in conceptualizing and responding to the phenomenon of terrorism.

Fragmentation of national frameworks

The definitions of terrorism adopted by national legislation reflect a variety of approaches, highlighting the specific political, legal and social priorities of each State. This diversity of interpretations illustrates the difficulty of establishing a common vision of the phenomenon, while exacerbating the legal fragmentation that complicates the international fight against terrorism.

In "France", the emphasis is on the "disruption of public order", with a definition focused on the consequences of terrorist acts for society. French law takes a pragmatic approach, seeking to protect social stability and institutions.

In the "United States", legislation favours the identification of "violent and indiscriminate acts", emphasizing the seriousness of the consequences for civilians and the absence of discrimination in the intended targets. This approach reflects an orientation towards the repression of the acts themselves, regardless of ideological or political motivations.

In Germany, the aim is to target "associations involved" in terrorist activities, criminalising organisational structures that may plan or facilitate violent acts. This indirect approach emphasizes the fight against terrorist networks, rather than the explicit definition of the acts themselves.

These divergences in national definitions create a "legal fragmentation" that poses major challenges to international cooperation. Differences in the characterization of terrorist acts or organizations complicate essential processes such as:

• "Extradition" of suspects, when the criteria for definition do not correspond between states.
• "Intelligence sharing", due to the lack of a common language to describe threats.
• "Coordination of responses", which requires mutual understanding and recognition of national priorities.

This disparity prevents the development of effective global strategies, leaving international actors with structural obstacles in the fight against a phenomenon that is transnational in nature.

The fragmentation of national frameworks highlights a fundamental tension: although terrorism requires coordinated responses on a global scale, States remain committed to their own interpretations and priorities. This diversity, while adapted to national realities, limits the effectiveness of multilateral initiatives and underlines the need for at least partial harmonization of definitions and strategies.

This fragmentation illustrates not only the cultural and political differences between nations, but also the difficulty of reconciling national sovereignty and international cooperation in a world that is increasingly interdependent in the face of global threats.

The limits of a national perspective

The lack of global consensus in national legislation on the definition of terrorism illustrates the tensions between responding to specific threats and the need for international coordination. Each State develops its own definition, adapted to its legal and political context, which leads to significant divergences in the qualification of terrorist acts and organizations.

These disparities create "practical obstacles" in key areas:

• "Extradition": Differences in the qualification of terrorist acts complicate extradition requests, as some countries may not recognise as terrorist acts or individuals that meet this qualification elsewhere.
• "Judicial cooperation": The lack of a harmonised legal framework makes it difficult to coordinate prosecutions, especially when terrorism-related offences involve several jurisdictions.
• Intelligence sharing: The diversity of definitions prevents fluid and effective communication between the intelligence services of different states, thus limiting their ability to prevent and counter transnational threats.

This legal fragmentation can also be exploited by "terrorist groups", which navigate between jurisdictions to evade prosecution. By taking advantage of the disparities in legal frameworks, these organizations can organize their operations in regions where the definitions of terrorism are less strict or the prosecutions less systematic. This situation weakens collective efforts to combat terrorism at the international level.

The absence of a global consensus reflects a fundamental tension between "national sovereignty" and "international coherence". Although each State has specific priorities and sensitivities, the fight against terrorism requires more harmonized legal frameworks. Without some uniformity in the definition and characterization of terrorism, international responses will remain fragmented and often ineffective.

A persistent challenge for international relations

The difficulties in defining terrorism within national legislation reveal a broader problem: the complexity of reconciling diverse legal and political frameworks in a context marked by transnational threats. Each State approaches terrorism through the prism of its own cultural, political and strategic sensitivities, resulting in a fragmentation of responses to a phenomenon that, by its nature, transcends national borders.

This disparity reflects not only the specificities of States, but also their inability to adopt a concerted and universal approach. National definitions, in adapting to local priorities, often neglect the global dimensions of terrorism. This lack of consensus weakens international cooperation, making it difficult to develop common strategies in key areas such as the prevention, suppression or fight against the financing of terrorism.

As long as these divergences persist, they will continue to limit the effectiveness of collective responses. International coordination mechanisms, whether in the extradition of suspects, intelligence sharing or concerted military action, will suffer from the shortcomings of the lack of a common language. Moreover, this fragmentation is often exploited by terrorist groups, which take advantage of inconsistencies to circumvent security and justice systems.

The failure to harmonize definitions and legal frameworks of terrorism is a major challenge for international relations. As terrorism evolves into an increasingly globalized threat, States must overcome their differences and adopt a common perspective. This requires strong political will and sustained efforts to build legal and policy tools capable of responding to the complexity and fluidity of this global phenomenon. Without such consultation, responses will remain fragmented and insufficient in the face of a growing global challenge.

To arrive at an international legal definition

The development of an international legal definition of terrorism is based on a minimalist approach, based on the lowest common denominator. This approach requires overcoming ideological and political differences, based on a "depoliticization of the terrorist act itself". The aim is to define terrorism by its fundamental characteristics, regardless of the motivations or justifications of the perpetrators.

Despite the global impact of the attacks of "September 11, 2001", this event did not lead to a significant advance in the reflection on a universal definition of terrorism. Tensions between States, exacerbated by divergent political and strategic interests, continue to impede any consensus. The politicization of the term remains a major obstacle, with each state seeking to preserve its sovereignty and national interpretations.

After "September 11", a "general convention on terrorism" is being studied, with the ambition of proposing a universal framework. However, the negotiations quickly ran into disagreements over whether and how to legally qualify terrorism. The debates reflect opposing visions: some states insist on a broad definition encompassing state acts, while others favour a narrow approach focused on non-state groups.

The search for consensus often results in definitions that are too vague to be really operational. A minimum definition, while facilitating broad adherence, may lack precision and may not meet the specific needs of the fight against terrorism. This necessary compromise illustrates the difficulty of reconciling national priorities with the requirements of international cooperation.

To arrive at an international definition, States must agree to set aside their particular interests and political sensitivities in favour of a common vision of the phenomenon. This process, while demanding, is essential for establishing coherent legal frameworks and strengthening global cooperation in the face of a threat that is transnational in nature. As long as these differences persist, the fight against terrorism will remain fragmented, limiting the effectiveness of collective responses.

Is it necessary to define and qualify terrorism in order to act?

The question of the definition and characterization of terrorism poses a fundamental dilemma: while a precise definition may provide a clear legal framework, it may also limit the ability of States to act quickly and effectively. This paradox is particularly evident in complex contexts such as the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", where the perception of actors varies considerably according to political and ideological perspectives.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the characterization of acts of violence as terrorist or resistant depends largely on which side issues the judgment. For "Israel", attacks carried out by Palestinian groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad are qualified as terrorist, aimed at delegitimizing these actions in the eyes of the international community. In contrast, for many Arab countries, these same acts are perceived as legitimate acts of resistance against an occupation. The Arab League, for example, refuses to consider the violence perpetrated in the Gaza Strip as terrorist acts, highlighting the eminently subjective and political aspect of this characterization.

The paradox lies in the fact that the "absence of a universal definition" of terrorism allows greater latitude for action by States. By not accurately characterizing terrorism, States retain the freedom to deal with it according to their own priorities and interpretations, without being constrained by a rigid international framework. This facilitates a rapid response to emerging threats, avoiding debates about the legitimacy or nature of the acts.

However, this lack of qualification also carries risks. It paves the way for an opportunistic use of the term, where each state can define terrorism according to its interests, sometimes to justify repressive measures or human rights violations. In addition, it complicates international cooperation, as the actions of one State may be perceived as illegitimate or abusive by others.

By not defining terrorism, states can act in a "reactive" manner, tailoring their responses to specific situations without depending on the approval of other states or a universal legal framework. This provides valuable flexibility in the fight against a threat that is inherently unpredictable and evolving. However, this approach is based on a delicate balance: while it allows for swift action, it also risks undermining the legitimacy of the measures taken, especially when they are perceived as arbitrary or disproportionate.

The need to define and qualify terrorism depends on the priorities of States and the contexts in which they operate. While a universal definition can provide a common basis for international cooperation, it also imposes constraints that can slow down or limit action. Conversely, the absence of a definition allows for greater responsiveness, but at the cost of a legal uncertainty that weakens the coherence of global efforts. This dilemma illustrates the complexity of dealing with a phenomenon as multidimensional as terrorism in an international context.

What are the disadvantages of not being able to define it at the international level?

The failure to arrive at a universal definition of terrorism has major international drawbacks, particularly with regard to cooperation, the legitimacy of the actions taken, and the possible excesses of States. This legal vagueness reflects the tension between national sovereignty and global needs, but it has significant consequences for the management of this complex phenomenon.

The lack of a definition forces each "nation-state" to deal with terrorism according to its own priorities and perception of threats, in the name of its national security. Although efforts at "international cooperation" exist, these are limited by divergences on the ways of acting and the "boundaries of state intervention". This weakens collective responses, with each state preferring to retain its sovereignty in the management of what it considers to be an exclusive prerogative.

The term "terrorism", in the absence of a clear definition, becomes an "opportunistic label", used by states to justify exceptional measures. Under the pretext of the fight against terrorism, states can invoke the "reason of state", a principle that allows them to temporarily remove themselves from democratic norms to respond to a perceived threat. This latitude often leads to the adoption of emergency laws, sometimes "anti-democratic", which can be used to repress not only violent acts, but also political opponents or dissident movements.

A striking example of this drift is Guantanamo, where terrorism suspects are held without trial in a setting that defies the norms of international law. This case illustrates how, in the absence of legal consensus, some states justify controversial practices in the name of national security.

Terrorism, as an "evolving" phenomenon, is constantly adapting to new political, social and technological dynamics. This development makes it even more complex to develop a stable definition. The absence of a universal framework offers states "flexibility" in their management of the phenomenon, allowing them to define and redefine priorities according to their strategic needs. However, this flexibility is accompanied by a lack of "international responsibility", as states do not have to justify their actions before global bodies.

The lack of an international definition encourages several abuses and disadvantages:

1. Lack of accountability: States can act unilaterally without being held accountable for their actions at the international level.
2. Practices not in accordance with international law: Measures such as extrajudicial detentions or the use of torture find tacit legitimization in this legal vacuum.
3. Impeded cooperation: The lack of a common language makes it difficult to establish effective frameworks for extradition, intelligence sharing, or the prosecution of transnational terrorist networks.
4. A loss of legitimacy': State actions, perceived as arbitrary or excessive, can generate international criticism and fuel feelings of radicalization.

The lack of an international definition of terrorism reinforces the disparities between national approaches and hinders the construction of a coherent global strategy. While this allows states to act quickly and autonomously, it weakens the legitimacy and effectiveness of collective efforts to respond to a transnational threat. This issue remains a major challenge for international relations, calling for a balance between national sovereignty and global responsibility.

Annexes

• Bauer Alain, Bruguière Jean-Louis, « Terrorisme, terrorismes ? », dans Les 100 mots du terrorisme. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Que sais-je ? », 2010, p. 3-4. URL : https://www.cairn.info/les-100-mots-du-terrorisme--9782130579502-page-3.htm
• Tschantret, Joshua. “The Old Terrorism: a Dataset, 1860 – 1969.” International Interactions, vol. 45, no. 5, 2019, pp. 933–948., doi:10.1080/03050629.2019.1649259.

Bibliographie

• Rémi Baudouï, Les défis du terrorisme, Paris, Ellipses, février 2007 ;
• Rémi Baudouï, Géopolitique du terrorisme, Paris, Armand Colin, 2009;
• Gérard Chaliand, Arnaud Blin, Histoire du terrorisme, Paris, Bayard, 2004 ;
• Laurent Dispot, La machine à terreur, Paris, Grasset, 1978 ;
• Eric Cobast, La terreur une passion moderne, Paris, Sirey, 2004 ;
• Jean-Claude Frère, L’Ordre des Assassins, Paris, Grasset, 1973 ; Roland Gaucher, Les terroristes, Albin Michel, 1965 ;
• Jean- François Gayraud et David Sénat, Le terrorisme, Paris, Que sais-je ?, 2002 ;
• Anna Geifman, La mort sera votre Dieu. Du nihilisme russe au terrorisme islamiste, Paris, La Table Ronde, 2005 ; Daniel Guérin, L’anarchisme, Paris, Idées-Gallimard, 1965 ;
• J. de Hammer, Histoire de l’ordre des assassins, Paris, Le Club du Livre, 1961 ;
• Karl Kautsky, Terrorisme et communisme. Contribution à l’histoire des révolutions, Paris, 1925 ;
• Bernard Lewis, Les Assassins. Terrorisme et politique dans l’Islam médiéval, Paris, Berger-Levrault, 1982 ;
• Isabelle Sommier, Le terrorisme, Paris Flammarion, 2000 ;
• Charles Townshend, Terrorism, a very short Introduction, New York, Oxford University Press, 2002 ;
• Jean Maitron, Ravachol et les anarchistes, Paris, Gallimard, 1964 ;
• Karl Marx, La lutte des partisans, Paris, 10/18, 1973 ; André Salmon, La terreur noire, Paris, 10/18 ;
• Léon Trostsky, Terrorisme et communisme, Paris, 1963.

References