Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Most researchers tend to believe that an objective and internationally accepted definition of terrorism can never be agreed upon; after all, they say, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The question of who is a terrorist, according to this school of thought, depends entirely on the subjective outlook of the definer. This article argues that an objective definition of terrorism is not only possible; it is also indispensable to any serious attempt to combat terrorism. A correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are permitted in conventional wars between nations. This normative principle relating to a state of war between two countries can be extended without difficulty to a conflict between a nongovernmental organization and a state. This extended version would thus differentiate between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. The aims of terrorism and guerrilla warfare may well be identical; but they are distinguished from each other by the targets of their operations. The guerrilla fighter's targets are military ones, while the terrorist deliberately targets civilians. By this definition, a terrorist organization can no longer claim to be 'freedom fighters' because they are fighting for national liberation. Even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate, an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist organization.
Boaz Ganor (Tue,) studied this question.