Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism

The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism 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. Currently, the negotiations are deadlocked mainly because of differences over the definition of terrorism.

Key Issues

The negotiations of the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention are deadlocked because of differences over several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of ´terrorism´. For example:

• What distinguishes a “terrorist organisation” from a ‘liberation movement’?
• Are the activities of national armed forces excluded, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism?
• If not, how much of this constitutes ‘state terrorism’?”

The definition of terrorism, which was on the negotiating table of the Comprehensive Convention since 2002 is as follows:

• Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
  • Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
  • 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
  • Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to result in major economic loss,
  • When the purpose of the conduct is to intimidate threat a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

Proposed Exceptions to resolve the deadlock

In order to resolve deadlock the coordinator of the negotiations, supported by most western delegations, proposed the following exceptions to address those issues:

• This convention will not affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, peoples and individuals under international law especially for the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law.
• This Convention will not govern the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law.
• Even 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, will be not governed by this Convention.
• The state members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference proposed the following exceptions instead of western delegation:
• This convention will not govern 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.
• 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, will be not governed by this Convention.

India’s stand

India has been advocating for early adoption of the CCIT and has called the global community India had called upon the worldwide community to promote the anti-terror legal framework and execute the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy in an integrated manner. India is of the view that comprehensiveness of the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy will not be concluded devoid of the conclusion of the CCIT which is at an important phase of discussion before the UN.