The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) is a proposed treaty which intends to criminalize all forms of international terrorism and deny terrorists, their financiers and supporters access to funds, arms, and safe havens.
The convention has been under negotiation by the United Nations General Assembly's Ad Hoc Committee established by Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 on Terrorism and the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee (Legal), but as of 2021 [update] consensus has not yet been reached for the adoption of the convention.
India proposed this convention in 1996. [1] The UN General Assembly's Ad Hoc Committee established by Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 on Terrorism and the General Assembly Sixth Committee (Legal) have been undertaking negotiations since 1997. [2]
Although consensus has not yet been reached for the wording of the comprehensive terrorism convention, discussions have yielded three separate protocols that aim to tackle terrorism: International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted on 15 December 1997; International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted on 9 December 1999; and International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adopted on 13 April 2005. [2] [3]
The negotiations of the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention are deadlocked because of differences over the definition of terrorism. Thalif Deen described the situation as follows: "The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of 'terrorism'. For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a 'liberation movement'? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes 'state terrorism'?" [4]
India has been pushing for the treaty consistently, particularly in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, once again raised the topic in his address at the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly held in September 2014, [1] and India’s permanent representative at the GA, Syed Akbaruddin, further pressed for the adoption of CCIT following the July 2016 Dhaka attack. [5] At the 16th BRICS Summit as well, Modi, pushed for early adoption of the CCIT. [6]
At the BRICS session on Peace and Security during the 17th BRICS Summit, the leaders of member states amplified India’s concerns on terrorism called for the expeditious finalization and adoption of the CCIT in the UN framework." [7]
Being a criminal law instrument, the definition of terrorism to be included in the proposed Convention must have, in the words of coordinator of negotiations Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, the necessary "legal precision, certainty, and fair-labeling of the criminal conduct – all which emanate from the basic human rights obligation to observe due process". [8]
The definition of the crime of terrorism which has been on the negotiating table of the Comprehensive Convention since 2002 reads as follows: [9]
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
- (a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
- (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
- (c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.
This definition is not controversial in itself; the deadlock in the negotiations arises instead from the opposing views on whether such a definition would be applicable to the armed forces of a state and to self-determination movements.
The coordinator of the negotiations, supported by most western delegations, proposed the following exceptions to address those issues: [10]
1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, peoples and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law.
2. The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.
4. Nothing in this article condones or makes lawful otherwise unlawful acts, nor precludes prosecution under other laws.
The state members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference proposed instead the following exceptions: [10]
2. The activities of the parties during an armed conflict, including in situations of foreign occupation, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention. 3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are in conformity with international law, are not governed by this Convention.
India is the country which had raised consistent voice for the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, which it introduced in U.N.G.A. in 1996. [11] Yedla Umasankar, India’s representative at U.N in 2018 said that terrorists’ groups like Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba and the transnational links and financing mean no country can remain immune. [12] India has consistently rejected arguments that seek to shield certain violent acts under the guise of self-determination. Its position is rooted in its own experience with cross-border terrorism, particularly in Kashmir and other regions. India argues that any ambiguity in the definition of terrorism would only embolden non-state actors and undermine global consensus.
Further, he also argued that comprehensive convention would provide a strong legal basis against terrorism. At 77th session of sixth committee at UNGA, India called for “zero tolerance policy” towards terrorism. It pressed the member states to quickly adopt CCIT to strengthen frameworks against terrorism from this law instrument, the spokesperson Dr. Kajal Bhat, stated that there can be no exception or justification for any act of terrorism. [13] India reiterated the same position during the sixth committee of the 78th session at the UNGA. [14]
China’s position aligned with various members call for a global treaty against terrorism. China endorsed that it has and will take an active part in the formulation of CCIT. [15] This has been reiterated at 2015 China& India joint statement and called for early conclusion on CCIT. [16] The spokesperson also stated that to fight against all forms of terrorism for international peace. [17]
China’s position underlines its broader diplomatic strategy of supporting multilateralism and global legal instruments. It supports India’s proposal while maintaining a careful diplomatic balance in addressing the concerns of other global blocs. Further, the Chinese envoy stated that the shall be no double standards against terrorism and said that there is no good or bad terrorist, terrorism no matter what and when, it should be stopped. [18]
Pakistan positioned itself at the Sixth Committee as a victim suffering from terrorism. [19] They are supportive of an international treaty. It reiterated the position of Saudi Arabia representing Organisation of Islamic Countries and Iran on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that CCIT should differentiate between acts of terrorism and legitimate struggles for self-determination against foreign occupation. [19] [20] Further, Arab diplomats also called for the inclusion of state terrorism. [21]
The United States also condemned terrorism in all forms but urged careful deliberation over the definition in CCIT. United States Position is it is against the inclusion of the self-determination as an exception in CCIT. A 2005 statement by U.S. spokesperson Robert O’Brien signalled that opportunity to conclude CCIT should not be missed and said that U.S. was ready to accept an introductory paragraph on self-determination. However, he argued that attacks on World Trade Centre on September 11, 2009, attacks on Moscow subway, London bombings were not because of self-determination but by a global insurgency against international system. [22] It also deliberates on whether the question of armed forces using power amounts to terrorism. [23]
The European Union consistently working and collaborating for the definition of terrorism in CCIT, as it came to a consensual definition and framework, in EU Directive on Combating Terrorism, which they adopted in 2017. [24] India and EU jointly declared to intensify efforts to bring negotiation close on CCIT, [25] but they are insisting on a clear definition of terrorism adhering to international humanitarian law. [26]
At the first meeting of the 73rd General Assembly session of the Sixth Committee in October 2018, speakers from around the world reported that the failure to agree on the comprehensive convention had hindered efforts to combat terrorism. All supported efforts to conclude the process as quickly as possible, with some raising concern about specific issues, such as conflating terrorism with the legitimate aspirations for self-determination. [27]
