Keywords

Dialectics, Human Rights, Self-Determination, Terrorism, Violence.

Introduction

The genesis of this paper aims to deliberate the use of violence called Terrorism to invent fear among humans to acquire a certain political goal. Both leftist and rightist terrorist acts have been conducted with political parties, religious and nationalist groups, rebels, and even government institutions like the armed forces, intelligence agencies, and police have all engaged in acts of terrorism. Terrorism is often a complicated and contentious phenomenon because it is based on inherent fury and brutality. In constant, the word has gained a lot of popularity and strong negative connotations in this common culture. In the 1790s, it was first used for discussion about the terror that rebels used against their opponents in the French Revolution. During their Reign of Terror, Maximillian Robespierre's Jacobin group put a lot of people to death at the guillotine. Since the 20th century, the word "terrorism" has mostly been used to describe violent acts against governments that aim to prevent the establishment of regimes or change policies. This is even though the meaning of terrorism. In this case, requires a state to use violence against its people. Figure 1 shows the factor that makes a person into terrorist.

Few governments have clear rules about what terrorism is, but the ones that do tend to have some things in common. When violence or the fear of violence is used to scare many people, not just the immediate victims, this is called terrorism. Terrorism is different from both traditional war and guerrilla conflict in how much it relies on fear. Traditional armed forces always use psychological warfare against their enemies, but the primary weapons are the psychological warfare against their adversaries of winning. In the same way, rebel groups like the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia try to win combat battles and sometimes undertake. The often depend on time and rely on terror attacks and other forms of marketing. In other words, terrorism is the planned use of violence to cause fear and further political goals when direct military victory is not possible. Due to this, some social scientists have identified terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest" and guerilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak”.

The field of terrorism studies has grown in stages. It is prevalent to point out that terrorist scholars have different academic backgrounds and conflicting perspectives. From an aerial perspective, it seems surprising that over the years, researchers who study terrorism have come to a wide but genuine scientific agreement on some of the fundamental elements that go into defining a terrorist. There are still questions that haven't been answered and arguments and talks that are still going on. Conversely, we know that people don't just accept political assassination. However, the most crucial is that there are several pathways to becoming a terrorist as there are humans. Figure 1 shows the factor that makes a person into terrorist. (Figure 1)

• The study of terrorism has developed in successive waves. It is common to highlight scholarly differences and competing paradigms among students of terrorism. Taking a bird’s eye

• The study of terrorism has developed in successive waves. It is common to highlight scholarly differences and competing paradigms among students of terrorism. Taking a bird’s eye

• The study of terrorism has developed in successive waves. It is common to highlight scholarly differences and competing paradigms among students of terrorism. Taking a bird’s eye

• The study of terrorism has developed in successive waves. It is common to highlight scholarly differences and competing paradigms among students of terrorism. Taking a bird’s eye

Not all governments have laws that define terrorism, but those that do often have some things in common. Terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence to instill terror in a large number of people, not only the immediate victims. Terrorism differs from both conventional and guerilla combat in how much it depends on fear. While traditional military forces always use psychological warfare against their adversaries, their primary tactic for winning is superior weaponry. Similar to this, guerrilla groups, like the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, seek military triumph and sometimes achieve. They often depend on acts of terror and other types of propaganda. Thus, whenever direct military triumph is not attainable, terrorism proper is the deliberate use of violence to instill fear and thus accomplish political aims. Because of this, some social scientists have labeled terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest" and guerilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak”.

History on Intersection of Terrorism and Human Security

The dominance of a market economy and the advancement of communications and technology are both results of globalization. Anyhow the benefits, there are several drawbacks as well, such as risks to human security. The globe is now dealing with issues including breaking norms, difficulties related to national identity, unstable economies, joblessness, and a lack of functional security. Due to these issues, societies become vulnerable to international terrorism, which calls for the development of a new definition of security that emphasizes the role that people play in thwarting such threats. In light of terrorism, human security is a significant problem and is essential to meeting several development indicators, including human advancement, the satisfaction of fundamental needs, and peaceful life free from fear and uncertainty about the future (Maxted & Zegeye, 2001). The 21st century has seen a significant rise in terrorism, a phenomenon that transcends political, geographical, and cognitive boundaries and has affected the Arab world. The Arab world has been plagued by political unrest ever since the Arab Spring, which has led to the resurgence of terrorism in a variety of shapes and forms. It includes enduring threats with political, social, economic, and strategic motivations. Human rights have also been connected to the danger to human security. The detrimental effects of terrorism on the protection of human rights and freedoms were affirmed by a ruling that was approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council on March 23, 2018. Recognizing acts of terrorism as unlawful and unjustifiable, the UNHRC promoted actions to ensure international human rights law is complied with by counterterrorism legislation and its implementation.

A Greek mind may surmise that, like everything else, terror strikes in waves (Rapoport, 2001) and cycles. Similar to terrorism, there are varying perspectives on how (geo) political periods are controlled by terrorism. The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences concluded that only antiquarians had an interest in terrorism in 1933, after the many instances of "anarchist" terrorism that occurred between 1878 and 1914. There is undoubtedly a propensity to see the present as completely distinct and as a "new" period, even one whereby terrorism "for the first time" becomes a truly relevant political reality, even if each era is undoubtedly defined by its sort of terrorism (Rapoport, 1983). Ulrich Beck therefore interprets 9/11 as representing "something unprecedented in history," namely "the complete collapse of language” (Beck, 2002). Similar claims are made about contemporary terrorism: it is described as "new terrorism"(Stanley, 2001) "more dangerous", and there is a "new breed of terrorist". According to (Smith, 2003), we would be in a "time of terror" right now. However, the years 1960–1980 have been referred to as "the years of terrorism" a label that is difficult to accept given the current times, when there is little historical memory and a sense of urgency about geopolitical processes unseen since the conclusion of the Cold War. How the West portrayed its adversary during the Cold War and how it now views international terrorism have some startling parallels. Similar phrases are used to characterize the current "age of terror," even though during the Cold War communism was seen in the West as a global evil conspiracy (Nuzzo, 2004). There is evidence of the same divisive rhetoric and sporadic disregard for diplomacy. Lastly, there are the same existential concepts that are used to describe geopolitical wars. The competing powers of Good and Evil are divided, just as they were during the Cold War. A certain "way of life" is under jeopardy. Paradoxically, therefore, the present state of affairs is considered unique, yet it is explained in terms appropriate to a previous geopolitical "paradigm"(Evans & Huntington, 1997). Furthermore, the conceptualizations used in terrorist analysis are very political.

Literature Review

The study aims to clarify the dialectic between radicalism and pesantren that exists in the Lamongan Regency. Several pesantren, including one in Lamongan, were among the thousands of pesantren across Indonesia that the National Counter-Terrorism Agency (BNPT) revealed to be engaged in the recruitment of radical santri. However, the BNPT's revelation led to a generalization by outside observers that is, that all Indonesian pesantrens, not just some of them, preach radicalism (Ridlwan, 2019). Many others are impacted by the evil deeds of a small number of individuals. In actuality, pesantren who are charged with encouraging extreme behavior also contest that they do so. What is radicalism and dialectic specifically taught by pesantren, and which form of pesantren teaches radicalism? Interview and field data may demonstrate the existence of pesantren dialectic and radicalism.

A lot of the way that terrorism is conceptualized nowadays unintentionally reinforces political ideas about terrorism. Researchers tend to ignore the process of terrorism, which entails an evolving dialectic of acts and responses, mostly because they ultimately depend on terrorists' objectives to define terrorism. As a result, terrorism is reduced to the deliberate acts of terrorists, and this obfuscation of the terrorists' motivations makes it easier to deny political historical reality and adopt a reaction narrative. (Schinkel, 2009a) propose a conceptualization of terrorism that goes beyond current definitions and conceptualizations by first differentiating terrorism from terror and then viewing terrorism as a paradox in which the definition of terrorism is intrinsically linked to the response to it. In actuality, some nations' responses to acts of terrorism qualify as acts of terrorism ex post facto because they reframe activities that happened after an incident as the catalyst for the whole series of events.

A theory of recognition is used as the primary point of criticism in this study to look at the theoretical and practical problems that terrorism brings to a moral theory of justice. Modern law is meant to protect ideals like individual freedom and human respect, which are always at odds with the idea of justice. Events that are very different from what is expected, like terrorism, both set the limits of this conflict and push them further. Terrorist presents a difficult situation for theorists like Antony Duff who want to characterize punishment as a communicative activity and hence legitimate in the perspective of a liberal democratic society. But this theory leaves out a very important part of the social side of liberty. Without it, the communication process that the penalty is supposed to protect is put at risk. This study seeks to examine the criminalization of terrorism from the standpoint of recognition, challenging the previously stated rationale for punishment while also offering criticisms.

The study looks at how persuasive meaning works by using short case studies and a close look at how the word "war" was used in reactions to terrorists after September 11, 2001. (Zarefsky, 2006) analyzing persuasive definitions, we may identify commonalities and distinctiveness between the use of strategic maneuvering in rhetorical and dialectical arguments, as well as distinctions between the normatively ideal and real-world arguments on the function of strategic maneuvering. By doing this, the comparison between real rhetoric and ideal dialectic or vice versa will not be made using a double standard. The analysis's findings point to potential areas of convergence between rhetorical and dialectical methods of arguing.

Political concepts of terrorism are unintentionally reified in many modern conceptualizations of terrorism. Researchers tend to ignore the process of terrorism, which entails an evolving dialectic of acts and responses, mostly because they ultimately depend on terrorists' intent to define "terrorism." As a result, terrorism is reduced to the deliberate acts of terrorists, and this obfuscation of the terrorists' motivations serves to both enable the political "negation of history" and the "rhetoric of response." (Schinkel, 2009b) presenting a conceptualization of terrorism in this paper that goes beyond current definitions and conceptualizations by first differentiating between terrorism and terror, and then conceptualizing terrorism as a paradox, whereby what terrorism is intrinsically linked to the response to terrorism. Some nations describe an act of terrorism as "terrorism" by "refolding" acts that happened after an event into that event as the first cause of the whole chain of events.

The point of the paper is to show how the meaning of violence changed in Germany, France, and Italy, the three Western European countries most affected by "terrorism," from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. It examines the formation, development, and significance of coding of political legitimacy arguments during this time, which mostly focused on the binary opposition of violence and non-violence. Its main focus emphasis is on how these ways of interpreting dialectically. Because of conversations about violence and pacifism, some kinds of actions become possible and accepted. Conversely, both violent and peaceful forms of group action changed the aim and structure of the discussions. From the point of view of the political customs of the three countries, this was the start of an era of nonviolence, even though a lot of people were killed.

The events of September 11, 2001, will continue to affect politics around the world well into the 21st century. They could be seen as part of a larger conversation that links US violence to the rise of international terrorism. The United States is currently fighting a unique and badly defined war on terrorism. As the USA continues to wage its unprecedented and poorly defined war on terrorism, and as the components of American superpower hegemony economic, social, cultural, and military become more solidified, this deadly cycle is certain to intensify. The powerful people in the US want to keep any possible options for the neoliberal New World Order from happening. The US ruling class wants to block off potential alternatives to the neoliberal New World Order while simultaneously opening up the globe to investment in capital, free trade, and corporate dominance. In this case, all kinds of terrorism constitute an unintentional support of the US empire by helping the war economy and surveillance state, and they are also a kind of very violent fighting back against the empire. There is a rise in national discrimination, ideology conformity, and military culture. One of the worst results of the militarism-terrorism dynamic in the US is that political speech is being shut down even more.

Discussion

Human rights are universal laws that protect them from actions or inactions, usually by the government, that hurt their basic freedoms, rights, and sense of worth. The preservation, fulfillment, and respect of civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights in addition to the right to development are all included in the whole range of human rights. It is said that human rights are inalienable, intertwined, and global, which means that everyone has them. It is said that human rights are inalienable, intertwined, and global, which means that everyone has them.

Indirect Instrumentality of Terrorism

The first thing that may be inferred from present conceptualizations is that terrorism operates via indirect instrumentalism In other words, terrorists criticize outsiders because they can't directly change the behavior of the people (mostly states) whose behavior they want to alter. In Brown & Stern say that terrorism is "an act or threat of violence against people who are not fighting with the goal of intimidating or hurting an audience or audiences." Sloan (1984) says that terrorism targets a large "audience" by focusing on a small group of civilians. Terrorism, on the other hand, uses two different kinds of indirect instrumentalism. Just like the people who are hurt by terrorism are not the main goal, neither is the bigger population that is scared by it. In theory, a (terrorists) could be said to put pressure on B (an enemy government body) by striking or threatening to attack C (random citizens or symbolic targets). A hope that by making D (the bigger population) afraid, D and maybe even E (foreign political groups) will put political pressure on B. Because terrorism uses fear as a tool, it works best when C and D can be switched around. In other words, it works best when its direct targets are people rather than things, and it also works best when its direct targets can be anyone who is worried about terrorists. The best way to make people afraid is for direct victims and people who watch terrorists to be able to talk to each other. According to Michael Walzer, "the essential characteristic of terrorist activity is randomness". So, I would say that the above description fits terrorism in a more ideal-typical way, which is something that Al Qaeda does better than either the Red Brigades or the Baader-Meinhoff gang. It wasn't always clear what the Rote Armee Fraktion would do, but the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda were much more unpredictable. For example, as a communist terrorist cell, the second group kidnapped and killed businesses and bankers to raise knowledge about class rather than fear. Such a categorization of terrorism may include definitions of terrorism that do not need randomness, but it maintains that the most ideal-typical kinds of terrorism include randomization of proximate or direct targets as a characteristic.

Terrorism and International Criminal Law

The international legal community began attempting to create a comprehensive anti-terrorism pact in 1996. Because the definition of terrorism has never been agreed upon, there have been several efforts to agree on a global treaty within the framework of an ad hoc committee of the UN Global Assembly, but this aim has never been achieved. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not include the crime of terrorism for the same reason. Given the impact of the September 11 attacks on both national and international criminal law and the absence of an international extradition convention about international terrorism, this begs the question of how well-equipped international criminal legislation is to combat international terrorism. The terrorist assaults in Bali and Mombasa (Kenya) have highlighted the further need for such a standard convention (Knoops, 2003). In the meanwhile, the European Union is ushering in a new chapter in its fight against terrorism with the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The idea behind this project is that it will get rid of the present processes and problems with transfer. However, the Extradition Chamber of the District Court of the Netherlands in Amsterdam recently turned down a request to extradite someone who is thought to be a member of the banned Turkish PKK. This ruling shows how important the "Rule of Law" is in the fight against terrorists around the world and in Europe. A lot of attention is being paid to the use of military force to fight terrorism, whether it's in Afghanistan, Iraq, or somewhere else. Still, countries that use non-coercive means are the ones who fight terrorism the most around the world. When countries like the US would normally want to move alone in this area, they have to follow joint policies that depend a lot on international law and international organizations. To look at the bigger question of whether and how international laws and bodies have affected US behavior, looks at a number of non-military actions that the US has taken, such as criminal investigations and putting economic sanctions on terrorist groups and other enemies of the US. It shows how US courts and politicians use international law and organizations to further US interests on a range of issues. It also suggests that the way the US acts is affected by the rules and standards of the global community, which are reflected in international law.

Human Rights and Counterterrorism

Denying humans their rights is a direct result of terrorism. Because of this, states need to have strong policies against terrorists. The fight against terrorism may be hard for states and other groups because of difficult problems, but international human rights law can still handle them. One view says that Africa is filled with war, poverty, and disease attacks, so US interests don't need to be concerned with it. Because of its geography and culture, Africa is likely to stay that way for a while. A different view on US foreign policy, mostly linked to the National Coalition for Africa, calls for an African Marshall Plan and US participation in a wide range of African issues. This paper provides a strong case for a minimum US foreign policy for Africa that works for both the US and Africa. It talks about issues like international security and counterterrorism, democracy and human rights, free trade, and major changes to the multilateral assistance system. By gradually expanding on these areas of success, US-Africa collaboration may ultimately reach a level that would defy those who would like to stay out of this troubled region and achieve any of the objectives that the total-involvement school today promotes.

Protection of human rights

Human rights are deeply embedded in the legal, ethical, and moral frameworks of both nation-states and the global community. This is especially true in the widely held beliefs about a future where everyone aspires to freedom, justice, and peace. Even after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted and developed, attitudes and actions related to human rights are still controversial, subject to criticism, and often involve flagrant violations such as hostile and repressive state sovereignty, anti-immigration politics and policies, and acts of terrorism. They have all had egregiously cruel effects on displaced peoples and members of minority communities worldwide. On the other hand, in the current era, civil advocacy groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are actively promoting human rights as the cornerstone of their strategy to combat the oppressive and exploitative undertones of global capitalist expansion, as well as the growing tide of socio-cultural injustices and socio-economic disparities across the globe. Human rights are undoubtedly valuable as social, legal, and rhetorical concepts on a global and societal level. However, defining the terminology might cause problems for the intellectual and theoretical understanding of human rights. In (Turner, 1993), for instance, points out that early sociology was skeptical of human rights, in contrast to law, philosophy, and politics.

Turner points out that similar justifications can be made for "social rights," "women's rights," "aboriginal rights," "animal rights," and we may even include "labor rights." Despite this, he continues to offer a framework for a social theory of human rights because, among other things, he states that "the institutionalization of rights using the United Nations charter has to be regarded as an essential component of the social process of globalization" and that "contests over rights as claims or entitlement are a major feature of modern social life." Therefore, it is possible to see "human-rights concepts as a progressive paradigm that is relevant to a world system." Turner mentions human rights solidarity but also acknowledges that it is impossible to defend the idea of rights against every criticism, such as that it is individualistic, prejudiced, western, and gives "Western powers the power to take action in the Third World." But he did pave the way for the possibility of a "dynamic sociology of human rights," staying cautious of the "continuous political procedures which undermine the rights of citizens" and emphasizing embodied human fragility, social precariousness, and communal compassion (Hynes et al., 2012).

International Legal Provisions on the Right to Self-Determination

The freedom to choose and manage one's own political, economic, and sociocultural destiny is known as the right to self-determination. It has been a term used in international law since the League of Nations was established and the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Originally, under the League of Nations, self-determination could only be recognized as a political ideal, or "an imperative principle that requires action” (Dersso, 2012). The concept of the right to self-determination is claimed to have been originally introduced in international law by Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States (US), in his well-known speech and 14-point declaration on the topic. The right was first established by the UN as a tool for its decolonization effort after World War I. With the inclusion of self-government in UN Charter Article 1(2) and Article 55 in 1945 the first international legal instrument to do so self-determination gained the stature of a globally recognized legal concept right under international law (Strutton, 2022). The following resolutions of the UN General Assembly further confirmed the legal position of independence as a concept under international law. Article 2 of UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, the Declaration on the Providing of Freedom to Colonial Nations and Peoples (Colonial Declaration), adopted the notion of the right to self-determination as a right of peoples in 1960. By adding situations other than colonization to the list of situations in which Article 1 permits the right to self-determination, the right was thus expanded beyond the notion of decolonization.

Palestine Activism and Legality

Yolanda Álvarez, a journalist, is aware of the unfavorable effects of reporting about Palestinian injustice. He covered Gaza's offensives in 2012 and 2014, and he was honored with many accolades for his reporting. But he also criticized the fact that, despite being some of the longest in the Gaza Strip, the 2014 follow-up was ignored by Spanish public television and has not been returned to the Middle East. Due to his involvement in the 2014 tragedy, the Israeli embassy designated him as a Hamas activist. Israel uses hate speech and anti-Semitism as a shield to stifle criticism of its actions. According to Patricia Simon, the Zionist lobby has made financial investments to pressure the European Union to go in that direction. "Hatred is an indicator of conformity to anti-discourse standards, but these norms are intended to criminalize any speech that raises serious concerns about Israel's occupation." According to Simon, these pressures have also been acknowledged by the Spanish government. Hate speech on social media is disseminated by government-run account management algorithms; nevertheless, certain Zionist non-governmental organizations have inserted terms like "anti-Zionism," "Israel," and "occupation" into these algorithms. These ideas are categorically regarded as hate speech. In addition to "Stop Islam" and "IV Reich," the Spanish government's regulations mention "trola and usual expressions of racist users," "BDS" (boycott, divestment, and penalties), "Free Palestine," "Apartheid," and "defend human rights.”

Resistance or Terrorism

The media's nomination of the terrorist organization Hamas, according to speakers, is inappropriate. Although Yolanda Álvarez said, "in many other parts of the world they are unable to comprehend it that way and journalists are not to say whoever is a terrorist group," this moniker has been widely used in the global north. It should refer to this as the Islamic Resistance Movement. His voice clarified that it is against the rules for media outlets like the BBC and Associated Press to use the term "terrorist" in their style guides. Isabel Pérez emphasized the pressure from the media on this matter. The head of the AFP agency was summoned by the French Senate to explain why the term "terrorist" is not used when discussing Hamas. The director said that they were unable to make that decision and that many of their clientele are from the global South, where Hamas is seen as a resistance movement rather than a terrorist organization (Gereñu, 2023).

Patricia Simon clarified that Israel has essentially prevented the media from covering Palestine news since the previous conflict in Gaza. "The oppression of the Palestinian people has become normal; they are no longer considered newsworthy." The media has given up and stopped covering the idea of occupied areas. Lubnah Shomal cautioned against accepting the oppressive state of affairs as the norm and stressed the need for media to contextualize and explain the colonial roots of the conflict. He blasted the mainstream media for counting the Hamas strike as if it had just appeared out of thin air. We have also used such term in our situation. "The origin of the dispute was the terrorist attack by Hamas," said EBB chairman Andoni Ortuzar on the Spanish national television network. "The second was the question of if the Palestinian state deserves to be recognized.

International Law was Enacted by Lubnah Shomali

To attempt a more impartial interpretation. "The right to defense is provided to Israel, but because they are an occupying force, that right is not theirs.” He reminded us that the Palestinians' right to resistance for which "all means can be used" is activated by their status of colonialism and occupation. He criticized the media for only reporting on terrorism and murder rather than acts of resistance. According to him, Palestinians have the right to resist their colonial oppressor "both by means of armed struggle and with approaches without weapons." For instance, Israel claims that the Palestinians' BDS campaigns and legal actions are direct assaults on him, despite the fact that the Palestinians have the right to do so.” As a journalist, Isabel Pérez believes that international and humanitarian law are the finest dams to construct a tale upon. However, Teresa Aranguren clarified, saying, "Reality is so warped that whenever a journalist speaks in terms of international law, he appears to be a Palestinian activist.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

At least 1,300 people were killed and scores more were injured as Hamas launched a surprise onslaught into southern Israel on October 7, a Jewish Sabbath day, hitting military outposts and civilian areas. During the siege, around 150 individuals, including foreigners, Israelis, and dual nationalities, were held captive by Hamas. Since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel has not engaged its enemies in street conflicts on its own soil, making the assaults exceptional in both scope and strategy. It has also never seen a terror assault with this intensity that has claimed so many civilian life (BUREAU, 2023).

The operation was dubbed "Al-Aqsa Storm" by Hamas, which claimed that it was a reaction to Israeli assaults on women, the destruction of Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque, and the continuous blockade of Gaza. Israel launched a huge military counterattack on Gaza after the Hamas strike, including missiles, fighter planes, and potentially lethal weapons such white phosphorus, according to Human Rights Watch. Almost 2,300 Palestinians have been killed in airstrikes so far, the majority of them were civilians and included over 600 children. In addition, Israel has ordered the approximately 1.1 million residents of northern Gaza to relocate southward within the next 24 hours as it gets ready for a ground invasion. In reaction, if civilian targets are struck without prior notice, Hamas is threatening to execute the captives one by one.

With over 2 million people jammed into a 140-square-mile area, the Gaza Strip constitutes one of the most densely inhabited locations on Earth. Situated on the western edge of Egypt, the enclave has been under siege ever since Hamas took it in 2007. Both the Egyptian ground blockade and the Israeli air, naval, and land siege of the region are still in effect today. Due to the Israeli assaults and embargo, Gaza is running short on food, fuel, and water, which has prompted requests for the urgent delivery of humanitarian relief. The first cargo left Jordan on Thursday and reached in Egypt's Sinai; however, it was not immediately apparent when it will reach Gaza. The UN, relief organizations, and nations are putting out increasing calls to save Gazans from a humanitarian catastrophe. A second aircraft carrier attack group is being sent by the US to the eastern Mediterranean "to deter violent attacks against Israel or any attempts towards widening this war followed Hamas's attack," the US has said. Another carrier group that has already been deployed to the area will be joined by the USS Eisenhower with her associated units.

The graph below show how many Israelis and Palestinians were killed or wounded in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) and Israel between 2013 and 2023 as a result of the occupation and fighting. Due to the high number of civilian deaths, humanitarian actors have had to respond in a variety of ways. Numerous events have raised questions about potential breaches of international law and a lack of responsibility. This entity will only include casualties related to the current hostilities between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which began on October 7, 2023, when these incidences have been reliably validated. Reports on such numbers may be seen in our Flash Updates and Snapshots till then. In contrast, information on casualties in Israel and the West Bank in other settings is updated on a regular basis after October 7, 2023. Figure 2 shows number of people killed in conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. (Figure 2)

Use of Force in Exercising the Right to Self-Determination

How the right to self-determination may be exercised is not yet covered by any explicit legislative provisions. That right, however, may be employed in "any legitimate action," as stated in the 1993 Viennese Declaration, was further reinforced in the 1995 Fiftieth Anniversary Declaration. The idea that customary national law does not prescribe a particular method for the realization of the right to self-determination is confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Chagos Advisory Opinion. Notwithstanding the absence of clear legal guidelines, several actual situations may serve as models for identifying the appropriate course of action permitted by international law to exercise the fundamental right to self-determination. The right to self-determination must first be distinguished and categorized. The right toward self-determination is divided into two categories: internal and exterior self-determination (Pentassuglia, 2017).

Internal self-determination is the methodical integration of all organizations in the national democratic procedure in a manner that maintains their cultural identity and allows them to grow on an equal basis with the majority community (Hilpold, 2017). The most common kind of this self-determination involves the establishment of an autonomous area, which is economically independent yet politically affiliated with the state.

External self-determination, on the other hand, usually takes the form of independence, total secession, secession from the current state, or self-government. Voting, establishing diplomatic ties, and possibly the most controversial using force are just a few of how people might exercise their respective positions of freedom of external self-determination (Ijezie, 2013). Usually, this kind of self-determination manifests itself in policies that support the desires of the majority but undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the current state. This form of total independence is usually not seen well by the States as they may see it as a means of challenging their sovereignty, which often results in conflict (Ahrens, 2004).

As previously stated, the international community opposes the use of force for any reason, including the exercise of external self-determination. The use of force is generally forbidden by international law, as stated in UN Charter Article 2(4). It was decided by all Member States not to use this organizing principle in any manner that violated UN law. Articles 39, 40, and 51 of the UN Charter, however, clearly state that there are two exemptions to this general rule: the entitlement to individual or collective self-defense, and a military operation that is authorized by the UNSC. States and people may use armed forces to defend themselves against any armed assault, among other uses of their right to self-defense. The wording "if a violent assault occurs" in Article 51 significantly limits the exercise of the right to self-defense to responding to an armed attack, even though it does not directly state as much. In this regard, it might be said that the article allows people who want to exercise their right to self-determination to do so as long as the sovereign or occupying authority is attacking them with weapons (Melzer, 2009).

Conclusion

Understanding international public law is essential for comprehending the legal framework governing counterterrorism efforts since terrorism is becoming an increasingly global phenomenon. In line with this reasoning, the earlier chapters were meant to give you an overview of the most important parts of criminal international law, international humanitarian law, refugee law, and human rights law as they relate to fighting terrorism. Because of technology and globalization, bad social trends have appeared that put people and the safety and security of the whole world at risk. Terrorism is the most well-known of these problems. It is seen as a social issue that affects people's safety in social, political, food, health, and natural ways, as well as across countries' social systems. So, threats to human safety are some of the most important problems that modern societies have to deal with. The conversation on terrorism must consider human rights as fighting terrorism cannot be done at the expense of basic freedoms and rights. International law, like the right to self-determination, allows possible broad participation in government and calm settlement of disagreements. It is crucial to understand the thin line between autonomy and self-determination, since using force to exercise this right continues to be controversial. Although, counterterrorism strategies must protect human rights and follow international law, even though they have to be implemented to keep individuals secure. The challenging issue is attempting to find a balance between the need to protect safety and civil liberties and the need to fight terrorists without compromising democracy principles. Additionally, working together on a global level is necessary to effectively counter international dangers and stop the spread of violent terrorism. To combat terrorism, comprehensive approaches that emphasize human security, protect human rights, and advance inclusive government are necessary. Addressing the causes of terrorism and encouraging people from different countries to work together can help reduce the potential danger that terrorism poses while protecting democracy values and basic freedoms.

References

Ahrens, C. B. (2004). Chechnya and the right of self-determination. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 42, 575.

Google Scholar

Beck, U. (2002). The terrorist threat: World risk society revisited. Theory, culture & society, 19(4), 39-55.

Cross Ref

BUREAU, H. (2023). Israel-Palestine conflict.

Dersso, S. A. (2012). International law and the self-determination of South Sudan. Institute for Security Studies Papers, 2012(231), 12.

Google Scholar

Evans, P. (1997). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gereñu, J. H. (2023). Terrorism. Argia.

Gutteridge, W. (1987). The age of terrorism. International Affairs.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hilpold, P. (2017). Self-determination and autonomy: between secession and internal self-determination. International journal on minority and group rights, 24(3), 302-335.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hynes, P., Lamb, M., Short, D., & Waites, M. (2012). Editorial Foreword. Sociology, 46(5), 787–796.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ijezie, C. (2013). Right of peoples to self-determination in the present international law. Available at SSRN 2304441. 

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Knoops, G. J. A. (2003). International Terrorism: The Changing Face of International Extradition and European Criminal Law. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 10(2), 149-167.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Maxted, J., & Zegeye, A. (2001). Human stability and conflict in the Horn of Africa: part one. African Security Review, 10(4), 95-109.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Melzer, N. (2008). Targeted killing in international law. OUP Oxford.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Nuzzo, A. (2004). Reasons for conflict: Political implications of a definition of terrorism. Metaphilosophy, 35(3), 330-344.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Pentassuglia, G. (2017). Self-determination, human rights, and the nation-state: Revisiting group claims through a complex nexus in international law. International Community Law Review, 19(4-5), 443-484.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rapoport, D. C. (1983). Fear and trembling: Terrorism in three religious traditions. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 658-677.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rapoport, D. C. (2001). The fourth wave: September 11 in the history of terrorism. Current history, 100(650), 419.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ridlwan, M. (2019). Dialektika Pesantren Dan Radikalisme Di Pesisir Utara Lamongan. Jurnal Darussalam: Jurnal Pendidikan, Komunikasi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam, 11(1), 36-55.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Schinkel, W. (2009). On the concept of terrorism. Contemporary Political Theory, 8, 176-198.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Smith, N. (2003). Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Continental Philosophy Review.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Stanley, J. (2001). Book Review: The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Armed Forces & Society, 27(4), 639-641.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Strutton, M. (2022). International law. Cossma, 23(12), 18–19.

Cross Ref

Turner, B. S. (1993). Outline of a theory of human rights. Sociology, 27(3), 489-512.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Zarefsky, D. (2006). Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20, 399-416.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 05-Jul-2024 Manuscript No. JLERI-24-15116; Editor assigned: 06-Jul-2024 Pre QC No. JLERI-24-15116(PQ); Reviewed: 20-Jul-2024 QC No. JLERI-24-15116; Revised: 25-Jul-2024 Manuscript No. JLERI-24-15116(R); Published: 01-Aug-2024