China’s Overbroad (Draft) Definition of Terrorism

by Kevin Jon Heller

Today’s a travel day, so I don’t have time to write a full post. But I thought I’d flag a very interesting article in The Diplomat about China’s new draft anti-terrorism bill, which seems to have a strong chance of becoming law. Here’s a snippet:

Obviously owing to the worrisome escalation of terrorist acts since the Tiananmen Square attack in October 2013, Chinese authorities decided to enact a comprehensive anti-terrorism law to address the new situation. Such a law requires, first and foremost, a well-reasoned definition of terrorism. Surprisingly, the draft law did not take up the terrorism definition that had been offered by the anti-terrorism Decision in 2011. According to Article 104 of the draft law, “terrorism” means “any thought, speech, or activity that, by means of violence, sabotage, or threat, aims to generate social panic, influence national policy-making, create ethnic hatred, subvert state power, or split the state.”

Article 104 goes on to flesh out the keyword “terrorist activity” as referred to in the “terrorism” definition. Accordingly, “terrorist activities” include (a) propagating, inciting, or instigating terrorism; or (b) forming, leading or participating in an terrorist organization; or (c) organizing, plotting, or implementing a terrorist action; or (d) supporting, assisting, or facilitating a terrorist organization or individual through the provision of information, funds, material, equipment, technologies or venues; or (e) other terrorist activities.

[snip]

Absent a comprehensive and universal definition of terrorism, individual countries, including China, are left with the authority to interpret the term for themselves. Compared with Western liberal countries, China has greater discretion to combat terrorism in an effective – albeit repressive – manner. However, whenever China resolves to address the scourge of terrorism, it must also face the challenge of how to strike a proper balance between security and liberty.

Before passing the anti-terrorism law, Chinese law-makers need to overhaul the definition of terrorism to guarantee that terrorism is described as a serious crime with an additional quality that calls both for international concern and harsh treatment. In addition, proper procedural safeguards regarding terror lists should be introduced to ensure that the definition of terrorism does not capture an unreasonably wide range of persons, or, if this happens, that the affected persons will not be subject to unreasonable consequences.

The article contains a nice comparison of the draft Chinese law with the elements of most international conventions on terrorism. It’s well worth a read.

http://opiniojuris.org/2015/02/14/chinas-overbroad-draft-definition-terrorism/

2 Responses

  1. Thanks for the post. The very idea, that ” thought ” can be introduced into any offense whatever, is at first place unreasonable (as defined or detailed in the very definition of ” terrorism ” ).

    It’s the first time I encounter such impossibility, that – thought….. Can be considered as a constitute of an offense.

    Since, conspiracy or soliciting for commission of an offense, is regarded as the basis or the ” floor ” for criminal wrongdoing, while thought, is far less than any of the such both .

    Amazing….. I wonder whether they realy mean it , as we perceive it ??

    Thanks

  2. wow! and any speech “by means of violence” to influence national policy!
    Dictionaries can recognize certain objective elements of “terrorism” such as the need for an intern to produce terror and an “terror” outcome.
    No government of organization should accept or continue to use a definition of “terrorism” that does not contain these two elements are requirements.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.