perspectivecase against
“
Some argue state terrorism should remain separate because states have legitimate authority to use violence, unlike non-state terrorists. Defining terrorism as exclusively non-state violence helps maintain legal clarity and political order. Also, state violence often occurs within frameworks of law and counterinsurgency, making the terrorism label inappropriate and potentially undermining state sovereignty.
controversy
Supporting arguments
- States hold a monopoly on legitimate violence.
- Legal and normative frameworks distinguish state actions from terrorism.
- Broadening terrorism's definition could dilute its meaning and complicate counterterrorism.
Read the full exploration