On issues requiring multilateral resolution, it is reasonable that a global framework exists. Indeed the global community has various international treaties on weapons proliferation, people movement, human rights, climate change, and poverty. Similarly, all states, democratic or autocratic, Western or Eastern, share a mutual detestation of terroristic acts as they have an asymmetric capability to threaten their power and undermine national security.

So, why is the global community without an all-encompassing arrangement that details member states’ obligation to end terror?

The two reasons are differing interpretations on liberation, separatist movements, and terror cells, and the clandestine nature of state-sponsored terrorism. This manifests an inability of the global community to agree on a standard definition of terrorism. The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a proposed treaty aiming to criminalize all forms of terrorism, has been stalled since 1997, precisely because of the disagreement on the definition. Questions at the stalemate’s vanguard include ‘are the armed forces of states included if they conduct acts of terror?’ and If so, what constitutes ‘state terrorism?’ 

We remember Human Rights Watch alleging the Syrian Assad Government’s use of barrel bombs on civilian targets in its ongoing civil war. Similarly, we know of what the United States asserts of Iran. Former President Donald Trump declaimed in April 2019 that “the Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror.” 

However, are more covert acts such as government financing or political and moral endorsement to terror groups considered state-sanctioned terror too? US Treasury official Sigal Mandelker claims Iran provides upwards of $700 million annually to Hezbollah and $100 million to Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas.

And what of anti-US states who believe the CIA conducts a degree of malicious international violence? This is often cited in Nicaragua and its provision of lethal aid to Syrian militant groups.

Another critical question causing the impasse is ‘one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter?’. Some Western states may designate Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as terror groups. However, Shi’ite majority nations maintain these groups carry out a moral purpose. 

Evidently, a gulf of understanding exists on terrorism. The world is without a joint international treaty. Still, partnerships and frameworks have been created with a more specialized purpose to target unambiguous aspects of terrorism, albeit not an exact terror cell or a way terror groups attain power.

Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led Coalition Against ISIL, comprises 78 states committed to the military campaign against the Islamic Caliphate across the Levant. The Coalition enjoyed various contributions from Iranian military proxies in the Middle East as well as Russian airpower, although they never formally joined the Operation. More recently, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison brokered a G20 Agreement that places pressure on Facebook to remove terrorist content in June 2019 after the Christchurch terror attack. 

While the United Nations has been unable to broker this international law, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has had varying degrees of efficiency and cohesion in the diplomatic war against terrorism. In the wake of the 11 September 2001 terror attack, the UNSC passed Resolution 1373, which created the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Committee. Recently, in September 2006, the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was passed by the UN General Assembly, exemplifying a degree of unity on the issue. Additionally, in June 2017, the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism was established, which provides global leadership on counter-terrorism mandates. 

Counter-terrorist legal arrangements have come in various forms. However, for international law to come to fruition against terrorism, it must have a specific purpose that provides a common ground for states to cooperate. An international commitment that obliges states to criminalize non-state terrorism is more effective; however, differences between liberators and terrorists would first have to be clarified. But, a divergence of national interests on the definition of terrorism appears to be stubborn, lasting almost 25 years. As such, an all-encompassing convention may be idealistic.

Nimble and rapid crisis diplomacy must be the interim solution, for example, when, after the sudden rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, President Obama used the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales to draw large support for the newly born Anti-ISIL Coalition.

I acknowledge this may be difficult in international procedure-heavy bureaucracies such as the UNSC. Nevertheless, it will involve states’ diplomats cooperating efficiently to be effective against the dynamic and emerging terrorist threat.