This is an excerpt from Critical Terrorism Studies: A Dictionary by Lee Jarvis and Alice Martini. Available in all good book stores, and via free download from E-International Relations.

Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or make a donation, to support our work.

Definitions of Terrorism

Terrorism is a notoriously challenging term to define, and no shortage of ink has been spilled on this task in academic work, government legislation, international conventions and beyond. There is no universal definition of terrorism, and there is unlikely ever to be one, not least because of the term’s inherently negative connotations and political usefulness as a tool with which to criticise or demonise the actions of others. Because of this, we might think of terrorism as an example of an ‘essentially contested concept’ – one for which there exists no agreement on the criteria for its appropriate usage. Efforts to move toward resolving the definition of terrorism have involved surveys of researchers, the creation of composite definitions taking features from a range of existing understandings, and analytical efforts to identify the core features of this phenomenon. Although some have argued that this definitional quest has become a distraction from more pressing concerns – such as how to counter terrorism in the ‘real world’ – others believe continuing engagement with it remains important. The reasons for this include holding governments to account when they use the term in a nakedly political way; the importance of being careful and accurate in our use of this terminology as students and researchers of terrorism; and the importance of definitional precision within instruments aiming to address this threat such as counterterrorism laws (Jackson et al 2011, 107).

Critical terrorism scholarship has tended to take one of two positions on this topic. The first is to engage critically with the assumptions of prominent definitions of terrorism in order to show their limitations and biases. One important example here involves showing how ‘actor-specific’ definitions – which limit terrorism to the violences of non-state organisations – make it difficult or impossible to take seriously the existence of ‘state terrorism’. Other examples include work highlighting how assumptions about terrorism’s distinctiveness or exceptionality may camouflage similarities with other forms of violence which have similar characteristics (e.g. Dexter 2012; Gentry 2015). A second strategy is to reject the task of defining terrorism altogether. Work here might focus on describing specific acts of violence rather than attempting to define terrorism – thereby avoiding generalisation; looking at how the concept is used and applied in practice, and the consequences that follow particular uses; or simply refusing to use the language of terrorism because of problems inherent to its history, framing, and selective application (e.g. Khan 2024).

The concept of terrorism is a notoriously contested one that has always evaded the search for a universal definition by academic........

© E-International