Public service function goal concept. Public service: goals, objectives, functions. Lawmaking - the development and adoption of regulations. The state civil service also manifests itself in the process of preparing laws in the Federal Assembly
3.3. Terrorism as a form of aggression
On October 29, 2002, Russian President Vladimir Putin gathered the ministers of the power bloc and discussed with them "some aspects of national security related to the fight against international terrorism." As a result of the meeting, Minister of Defense S. Ivanov was instructed to prepare a new version of the concept of national security, which would be adequate to modern terrorist threats.
In international practice, the introduction of troops and the conduct of military operations of one intensity or another in a situation of suppressing mass riots of a terrorist nature is not an isolated practice. This is a forced and last resort measure on the part of the central government, when other means of protecting the constitutional order and the rights of the civilian population have been exhausted. However, this is a very common practice in democratic countries facing organized subversive activities aimed at splitting the state.
There are a number of well-known examples of the use of government units to suppress armed separatist movements and terrorist groups in recent decades:
Introduction in order to suppress terrorist activities of regular government troops and a special regime of government in Ulster in Northern Ireland (since 1969) and in the state of Punjab in India (since 1987);
The use of a regular army against separatist movements in Jammu and Kashmir;
Regular use of army units and civil guards (military police) in the Basque Country and Madrid's tough policy towards the Basque terrorist organization Euskadi ta Askatasu na (ETA), which is fighting for the creation of the Basque "State of Euskadi".
In the fight against the mafia in Sicily (1963, 1985, 1992), regular Italian troops and carabinieri were also used.
Thus, the struggle for independence and the secession of any part of a single state, even a compactly populated ethnic minority, is not considered in the modern international political practice of democratic countries as a justification for conducting terrorist activities and is punished in the most severe way.
Regarding tactics in response to terrorism, Richard Wilson views military action, combined with economic sanctions, as an effective counter-terrorism tool. Overt military action against carefully selected targets and covert counter-terrorism operations against individual terrorist groups and individuals should be increasingly used and encouraged by countries fighting terrorism. Some military and paramilitary actions only destroy the resources and command structures of such organizations, but by doing so they undermine them and sow fear among the top terrorists. At the same time, the practice of suppressing terrorism has long been not limited to its own territory, which is clearly demonstrated by the example of the United States, which openly used armed forces against the ruling regimes of Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and others accused of terrorism (as well as a number of international crimes). ...
The greatest problems arise in the use of military force in the case of international terrorism, since in this case the subjects of the conflict are not only the state that is the subject of the terrorist attack, and the terrorists themselves, but also another sovereign state. Thus, defending its own sovereignty, a state attacking terrorists on foreign territory itself encroaches on someone's sovereignty, and thus the legitimacy of its actions is doubly questioned: not only from the standpoint of the adequacy of the use of armed force, but also from the standpoint of its own violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law - inviolability of borders.
Some states are taking covert actions - so-called unconventional methods - to neutralize terrorists and prevent planned attacks. Such actions may be aimed at disrupting and intercepting the supply of weapons and funds to the terrorist group prior to arrest and the delivery of wanted terrorists for murder trial. These measures can be justified as preventive activities in the framework of self-defense in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter. On the other hand, it can be argued that these actions violate the law of international customs. However, in July 1989, in its memorandum, one of the divisions of the US Department of Justice (Office of the Legal Adviser) recommended that the President violate international law by its authority and grant the appropriate powers to the Attorney General, if national interests so require.
Thus, using the principle of protection, which implies the exercise of jurisdiction by the state over crimes affecting its interests and security, regardless of the place of commission of the act and the citizenship of the alleged offender, the United States carried out a series of operations to capture persons suspected of involvement in terrorist acts against US citizens. For similar reasons, in 1987, Fawaz Yonis, a Lebanese terrorist, was captured aboard a yacht near Cyprus (after which he was sentenced to imprisonment), an Egyptian plane carrying terrorists who took part in the hijacking of the plane at Achilla Lauro was invaded. and their arrest in Sigonella; and the capture in Pakistan of Mir Eimal Kanzi, responsible for the 1993 assassinations near the CIA headquarters in Virginia. The Comprehensive Terrorism Act of 1986 makes terrorist attacks against US citizens overseas a federal crime and authorizes extraterritorial arrests and US court proceedings.
In recent years, in the practice of states, the question of the existence of the right to use force to protect their citizens in another state has become especially relevant. This was the case of an Israeli landing at the Entebbe airport (Kampala, Uganda) to free passengers of an Israeli aircraft hijacked by terrorists, an attempt by the United States to free the staff of its embassy in Tehran, and the US invasion of Grenada under the pretext of protecting its own citizens. The US representative during the discussion at the UN of the action in Entebbe outlined the position of his state as follows: is willing or unable to protect them. This right arising from the right to self-defense is limited to the use of only such force as is necessary and consistent with the task of protecting citizens from harm. "
According to a number of researchers, the use of force in this case can be considered as an exercise of the right to self-defense, since such use to save its citizens is not prohibited by international law. It cannot be considered as directed against the territorial inviolability or political independence of the state. Under all conditions, the use of force should be used exclusively for its intended purpose, only in cases where there are no other ways to save the lives of its citizens, not only in foreign countries, but (unlike in the past) and in domestic literature, opinions are expressed in support, in exceptional cases, humanitarian intervention.
Such actions can be considered as a response to B. Jenkins' statement that terrorism raises many questions about the insignificant amount of protection that a state can provide to its citizens outside its borders, as well as questions about the responsibility of states. When a terrorist from one state travels by train or plane of another state to a third country to carry out a terrorist act in a fourth country, who is responsible? What are the main responsibilities of States in preventing acts of terrorism against the citizens of another country?
It can be said that modern international law and the mechanisms existing in the UN make it possible to resolve these and other issues related to the fight against international terrorism in a political way. At the same time, the experience of the United States demonstrates that a state that has been attacked by terrorists (and even if the attack has not yet been carried out, but its threat is real), may consider the guarantees and possibilities for a peaceful solution of the issue provided by international law insufficient and inadequate in relation to criminal criminals - terrorists and their accomplices. Moreover, the terrorists themselves, as a rule, deny the recognition of any legal and moral restrictions.
As soon as an obvious threat comes from the territory of other states, the actions of the latter, according to UN standards, are regarded as aggression. It is another matter whether the international community always tolerates the equating acts of terrorism with aggression.
Awareness of the fact that, in most cases, concessions to terrorists only encourage new acts of terrorism, as well as repeated failures of the UN in developing a definition of international terrorism and effective mechanisms for countering terrorism, induce individual states to resort to unilateral military action against terrorism, believing, according to Neil Levingstone's formula, that "if it is impossible to force terrorists to answer before the law, then they should answer to arms, justifying this by the fact that, just as it is not a crime to kill an enemy in wartime, it should not be regarded as a crime or a morally reprehensible act when a nation, acting in accordance with its obligations to protect their own citizens from harm, seeks and destroys terrorists outside their borders, those who have committed or are planning to commit atrocities on its territory or against its citizens. "
The assessment of such actions by researchers and policymakers is mixed. Some directly regard them as a policy of state terrorism. For example, E.G. Lyakhov and A.V. Popov similarly qualify the repeated corresponding US counter-terrorism actions, confirming their conclusion by the content of the Directive of the US National Security Council No. 138 dated April 3, 1984 on the "fight against international terrorism", which defines the procedure preparation and delivery of preemptive and repressive strikes against "terrorists" in all regions of the world, the creation of special forces for these purposes, the conduct of extensive intelligence activities, open and secret actions with the use of weapons on the territory of other countries to protect the interests of the United States. "
Even before the explosion of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the preparation of other major terrorist attacks against the United States and Great Britain, at the end of 1995, Bill Clinton signed a top secret order approved by the intelligence committee in Congress, allowing the CIA to launch an operation to eliminate the network of terrorist cells as well as their leaders and sponsors. And after receiving information about the preparation of attacks on the American embassies in East Africa, the Americans launched preemptive attacks on the Saudi pharmaceutical factory, where, according to their information, Bin Laden was preparing to produce nerve gas. A preemptive strike with hundreds of cruise missiles was also struck at the bases of the Afghan Taliban, where, possibly, Bin Laden was located (Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya).
Without directly assessing the implementation of military actions against terrorists on the territory of another state as state terrorism, other researchers nevertheless consider such actions to be a violation of the norms of current international humanitarian law insofar as such actions entail massive losses not so much among terrorists, but also among the civilian population, which is fraught with aggravation of the conflict for many years to come. Thus, the assessment of Israel's counter-terrorism actions after the events in Munich in 1972 by the American ambassador Ch.V. Yosta: "Can we justly exclude from the definition of" terrorism "Israel's punitive raids against Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria, during which, undoubtedly, many completely innocent people were killed and which helped create a new generation of terrorists among their relatives and friends?" ...
Only a case of direct or indirect aggression, of course, justifies the possibility of retaliatory measures against another state, both individual and collective.
Apart from the fact that self-defense constitutes the main exception to the general prohibition against the use of force, it is, in the opinion of most authorities (authoritative researchers), an exceptional circumstance in which individual states can resort to armed force without the prior authorization of the central government. (In accordance with the prevailing point of view, all other hypotheses (in all other cases) of the use of coercion in international relations must be previously approved by the Security Council. The only exception to this principle, apart from Article 51, is actions against formerly enemies of states, provided for in Art. Articles 53 (1), 106 and 107 of the UN Charter).
Within the framework of the UN, one can speak of the right to self-defense, which is partly similar to the corresponding concept in domestic law. The use of coercion here is usually completely centralized and each use of force falls into one of the following categories: illegal use of force, centralized sanction, or individual (collective) self-defense.
In this sense, according to A. Tank, Art. 51 of the UN Charter is the path that every state must follow if it wants its use of force to become legal for the international community.
According to Bovett, self-defense is a "privilege" or "freedom" that justifies illegal behavior in other situations, which is required to protect certain rights in the literal sense.
According to a more restrictive interpretation, however, the scope of the right to self-defense is limited by the verbatim text of Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Customary law is thus limited and can only be used in cases of "armed attack". Moreover, no form of proactive self-defense is permitted.
Behavior that justifies the state's self-defense reaction is:
Direct foreign armed intervention in this state;
Intervention in the state by irregular forces;
A coup d'état through external penetration or provocation of civil strife in a given state;
An imaginary external threat to the security of the state;
A perceived threat to the security of a state invading in self-defense.
When determining the ratio of aggression and terrorism, the starting point was taken from the provision enshrined in Art. 353, 354 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which an aggressive war, as one of the types of wars, has features of armed aggression, as indicated in the UN Resolution "Definition of aggression"
"Article 1. Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial inviolability or political independence of another state, or in any other way inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition."
Article 3, among the actions qualifying as war, regardless of the declaration of war, calls "the sending by the state or on behalf of the state of armed bands, groups and regular forces or mercenaries who carry out acts of the use of armed force against another state, which are of such a serious nature that tantamount to the above acts, or his significant participation in them "6.
According to W.R. Latypov, the ratio of state terrorism and aggression can be characterized as the ratio of the general and the particular. "Aggression is at the same time an act of state terrorism; but the content and concept of state terrorism is not limited to an act of aggression." In his opinion, the difference between state terrorism and other forms of illegal use of force or the threat of force is that in the first case, the goal is to intimidate and terrorize a political enemy.
I.P. Blishchenko and N.V. Zhdanov write: "Terrorist acts committed by the authorities of any state, or allowing the authorities of any state to organize organized activities designed to commit terrorist acts in another state, must be qualified as an act of indirect aggression."
I.I. Karpets, Yu.A. Reshetov, N.B. Krylov and others. "We are now accustomed to the term" state terrorism ", - writes II Karpets. - I perceive it as a political term. For a lawyer, the term" aggression ", that is, an attack of one state on another, is clearer."
G.B. Starushenko. He proceeds from the official definition of aggression and considers it legitimate to classify as international terrorism all those listed in Art. 3 Resolutions of action, as well as other similar actions, if they are not so serious that they amount to acts of aggression.
According to N.V. Kormushkina, aggression is an independent international crime, it cannot be equated with state terrorism. For the same reason, it seems impractical to consider them as a ratio of general and special
However, state terrorism cannot be a crime. It is a criminal policy, just like aggression. Although in either case, it is possible to qualify, according to national legislation, the actions of individual officials as perpetrators or accomplices of a specific crime (terrorism, as well as other terrorist crimes or planning, preparing, unleashing or waging an aggressive war).
As a method, it is customary to refer aggression to traditional forms of warfare, and terrorism (including with the participation of a foreign state) to non-traditional ones. It is the political basis that makes aggression illegal violence - its mere fact, regardless of the consequences and impact. In the case of terrorism, the functional nature comes to the fore, since this form of violence is illegitimate precisely because of the actual or expected consequences, regardless of the ideological nature.
It was on the basis of these provisions that the United States considered it competent, in response to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, equal to an armed attack, to launch air strikes on terrorist bases on the territory of sovereign Afghanistan.
Supporters of the military choice justify the decision to use force by reference to Art. 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms the inalienable right of states to self-defense in the face of an armed attack. According to some researchers, acts of terrorism can be regarded as constituting an armed attack, as each nation retains the right to determine when circumstances warrant recourse to military action in self-defense. USA, resorting to Art. 51, de facto equated an act of international terrorism (which does not even include a state element) with war, declaring the actions of the terrorists on September 11, 2001 an act of aggression and thus exercising their right to self-defense.
However, if an act of international terrorism is equated with an aggressive (international) war, then it is just as legitimate to try to draw a parallel between domestic terrorism and various types of local wars (or armed conflicts).
Actually, international law strictly delimits internal conflicts (civil wars) from international conflicts (wars between states). A struggle within one state, a civil war cannot be regarded as aggression. But the intervention of one state in internal conflicts, in a civil war taking place in another state, with good reason is qualified as aggression.
Armed force can be used exclusively in the form of individual or collective self-defense, "if an armed attack on a member of the Organization occurs until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" (Article 51 of the UN Charter).
At the same time, it should be especially noted that there are a number of difficulties in conducting strategic offensive operations and reprisals against terrorist groups abroad and their sponsoring states: 1) in many cases of terrorist attacks it is very difficult, if not even impossible, to obtain sufficient high-precision intelligence data to establish the identity of criminals responsible for a specific attack; 2) military attacks (reprisals) can provoke a wider conflict, in which the benefits obtained as a result of a terrorist strike significantly exceed the possible payment for them; 3) military attacks (reprisals) associated with the death of innocent civilians carry the risk of losing "high moral grounds" and sympathy of international opinion; 4) a military attack (reprisal), which is undertaken unilaterally, may not receive the support of a significant number of allies and cause additional influence and alienation of allies; and 5) last but not least, a military attack (reprisal) can cause the effect of disappointed expectations public success in the fight against terrorism and will lead to the use of even greater military force subsequently.
Thus, armed force against a state involved in terrorism can be used only if the terrorist activity, in terms of its danger and intensity, qualifies as an armed attack. A state has the right to use armed force in self-defense in cases when acts of terrorism are committed against it by official bodies of a foreign state, as well as when another state organizes and directs armed bands committing terrorist acts. Moreover, terrorist acts can take place against the citizens of the affected side and abroad, in the high seas, international airspace. The main condition here is that terrorist acts should pose a serious threat and not be isolated, sporadic.
The use of armed reprisals against states for providing terrorists with financial support and supplying them with weapons is problematic and controversial from the point of view of legitimacy. These actions are undoubtedly prohibited by international law, and states should bear international legal responsibility for them. But such support of terrorists until recently was not considered as an act equivalent to an armed attack in the sense of Art. 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and paragraph "d" of Art. 3 Definitions of aggression 7.
The current international law predominantly adheres to the point of view that only unarmed sanctions can also be applied against states that allow their territory to be used to host terrorists, who provide them with refuge and do not fulfill their international legal obligations to prosecute criminals and eliminate the consequences of terrorist attacks. A benchmark in this regard is the decision of the UN International Court of Justice in the case "Nicaragua v. USA". It contains a provision that the provision by a state of its territory to persons committing terrorist acts in another country, the supply of weapons to them, and financing violate international law, in particular the principle of non-interference in matters that are essentially within the competence of another state. At the same time, the decision notes, this does not give grounds for the use of armed force in self-defense in response.
However, in this part, the court's decision was not unanimous. Judges Jennings and Schwebel expressed a dissenting opinion that when a state supplies weapons to rebels operating in another country, armed force may be used against it in self-defense. At the same time, they noted that the granting of territory can take various concrete forms and not all of them can entail armed forces.
The norms of international law in the period of armed conflicts actually regulate social relations when a war breaks out, regardless of whether an act of aggression has been committed or the right to self-defense is exercised. In this case, the following situations may arise: one state attacks another (an act of aggression); the state uses the armed force of the national army, defending itself against the aggressor (the right to individual and collective self-defense in accordance with the UN Charter); The UN decides to conduct an armed action; an armed conflict arises within a particular state when government forces are opposed by illegal armed groups; outside armed intervention (at the request of the legitimate government) in an internal armed conflict.
The most important doctrinal shift in US legislation was that terrorism was for the first time attributed to hostilities, and therefore to the prerogative of the armed forces, and became part of US military policy, which made it possible to fully use military force in the fight against it. The logical consequence of this was the efforts (practical and theoretical) of the United States to expand the scope of Art. 51 of the UN Charter on acts of terrorism.
As A. Tanka notes, a precise definition of the concept of an armed attack or the problem of the admissibility of the use of armed force against operations other than an armed attack is now more needed than ever. This is especially true in cases where the use of force is envisaged against acts of terrorism or drug trafficking. Including, according to a number of researchers and practitioners, summarized (analyzed) by A. Tank, if the individual use of force is allowed, the collective use of force should also be allowed to compensate for the actual inequality among countries in this important area. "This is especially true of such an activity if it is so serious that it jeopardizes the very existence of the States that are its targets."
Based on these criteria, the UN joined in preventive military actions aimed at preventing acts of terror. Thus, the UN Security Council did not object to the missile strike on Baghdad by the United States in June 1993 in connection with the attempts of the Iraqi authorities to commit a terrorist act against the ex-US President Bush in Kuwait.
When the focus of attention was on the problem of "response to terrorism" associated with the delivery of strikes by regular units of the armed forces on the territory of countries that supported certain groups and contributed to the conduct of terrorist attacks, the opinion of representatives of the US administration on this issue was unanimous. Back in 1984, Secretary of State J. Schultz: “The time has come ... to think about the need ... to strengthen security through the preventive use of force. quick action. "
I would like to note that in the United States for more than 10 years there has been a Center for the Study of Military Campaigns, whose specialists are not only engaged in fundamental research in the field of local wars and armed conflicts, but also promptly inform the country's leadership about the most acceptable options for using the armed forces in various crisis situations. ... It was the experts of this Center who were directly involved in the substantiation and preparation of the operations of the American armed forces: "Desert Storm", "Desert Fox" (Iraq), "Resolute Force" in Kosovo, etc.
The general principles of combating extremism and the use of US military structures in domestic crisis situations (conflicts) are contained in the US Constitution, the Code of Laws, and the Code of Federal Statutes. Their specification is given in a number of bylaws, primarily of the Ministry of Defense and the ministries of the branches of the armed forces. One of the latest documents in this category is the Charter FM 100-19, FM 7-10 "Domestic Operations", adopted in July 1993. It reveals the basic principles and mechanisms of the use of the armed forces and their interaction with the civilian authorities in order to prevent acts of armed violence within the state.
In the United States, the President is given the right to use either territorial military formations or the troops and forces of the federal armed forces (ground forces and naval forces) to fight civil unrest, as well as in the event of violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, to prevent secret conspiracies and illegal associations. with the aim of overthrowing the legally elected government or undermining the foundations of the state and law and combating them.
Based on the example of the United States, other states began to act as well. The Turkish armed forces, based on the same motivation, carried out military operations in Iraq to suppress the support bases of the terrorist Kurdish organization, Israel regularly took similar actions with regard to Syria and Lebanon.
According to the British newspaper Observer, in April 1996, several Israeli intelligence officers disguised as civilians arrived on the territory of southern Lebanon in Kwantu, in the area of the UN refugee camp, where, according to the Israelis, militants of the Islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah were hiding. ... The scouts transmitted the exact coordinates of the camp by radio to their command and left its territory, after which artillery and air strikes were inflicted on it. As a result, more than 100 refugees died.
One of the few official assessments not in favor of the United States was the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case, when the court did not approve and condemn the behavior of the United States. The Americans tried to justify their violations of the principle of the sovereign equality of states by the fact that they are being carried out within the framework of "the struggle against communist totalitarianism." But this argument was rejected by the International Court of Justice with the following wording: "The Court cannot accept that a new rule has appeared that gives one state the right to interfere in the affairs of another state because the latter has chosen a certain ideological and political system." Also, the court in its decision came to the conclusion that it is necessary to provide a separate state with the opportunity to use force of limited intensity to counter violent acts.
Western governments should have learned the lesson by now that weakness and concessions in the face of terrorist blackmail in a humane, yet often futile attempt to save victims of a single attack cost perhaps ten or a hundred times more death or injury in future attacks.
Obviously, the decade that has passed since the writing of this phrase has not been in vain, and now Western governments are ready for a tough response to terrorists. Unfortunately, however, this willingness is still highly selective. Especially with regard to Russia. It is advisable to always remember this when perceiving assessments of the actions of the Russian authorities by other members of the international community, and even more so their recommendations from the best intentions, realistically and critically, not chasing momentary praise from someone else's shoulder, but focusing on their national interests, the universally recognized rights of their own citizens and , first of all, their right to life and security from the threats of terrorism.
Therefore, it is extremely important at the domestic level to systematically conduct an objective (with the involvement of independent experts, representatives of all branches of government, competent departments, public human rights organizations) and a full assessment of their own actions and additional measures necessary in the future to ensure both an appropriate level of security and an adequate degree of protection of rights. and freedoms of citizens. Moreover, it is necessary that the results of such an analysis be brought to the attention of its own population - in order to achieve public agreement on the expediency and adequacy of the steps taken by the state.
In this regard, when analyzing the current legal framework of Russia in relation to the legal grounds for the use of armed forces in response to terrorism, it should be noted that the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation understands a military threat as such an external manifestation in relations or actions between states, when the possibility of unleashing a war by one state arises. against another (a group of states against one or more states). A military threat is the determined intention of a state (group of states) to unleash a war against another state (group of states) or damage its national interests and sovereignty by aggressive actions.
At the same time, it is stipulated that an armed conflict may arise in the form of an armed incident, armed action and other armed clashes of a limited scale and become the result of attempts to resolve national, ethnic, religious and other contradictions using the means of armed struggle. Moreover, one of the characteristic features of the conflict is the widespread use of sabotage and terrorist methods.
Terrorism is classified by the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation as one of the main internal threats.
Along with an attempt to violently overthrow the constitutional order; illegal activities of extremist nationalist, religious, separatist and terrorist movements, organizations and structures aimed at violating the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the internal political situation in the country; planning, preparation and implementation of actions aimed at disrupting the functioning of federal bodies of state power, attacks on state, economic, military facilities, life support facilities and information infrastructure; the creation, equipping, training and operation of illegal armed formations; illegal trafficking in the territory of the Russian Federation of weapons, ammunition, explosives and other means that can be used to carry out sabotage, terrorist acts, and other illegal actions; organized crime, smuggling and other illegal activities on a scale that threaten the military security of the Russian Federation.
A number of factors directly related to terrorist threats are also ranked among the sources of military dangers and threats: existing and potential hotbeds of local wars and armed conflicts, unresolved territorial claims; the proliferation of modern types of weapons and the latest technologies of military production, which with a high probability can be used for the implementation of various political goals; the spread of international terrorism using non-traditional weapons (nuclear, chemical, bacteriological), as well as the latest achievements in the field of traditional weapons (portable rocket launchers, modern explosives, including plastic).
Thus, in the context of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, terrorism as one of the manifestations of a military threat is adequate to aggression.
In view of the above, it is advisable in the Military Doctrine to consolidate both the legal grounds for the use of military force in the situation of the state's response to acts of international terrorism, and general provisions regarding the use of armed forces in the fight against anti-constitutional manifestations on the territory of the country and the legal regulation of such actions by special legislation.
When developing a proper anti-terrorist strategy (within the framework of the state concept of countering extremism and terrorism), considering extremism and terrorism in the context of encroachments on the constitutional order, special attention should be paid to the correlation of its various aspects with the exceptional form of threat to the security of the state - aggression, as well as with other social phenomena that pose an immediate threat to the life and safety of citizens or the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, the elimination of which requires the use of emergency measures.
As you know, in such situations, subject to the conditions determined by law, it is possible to introduce martial law and a state of emergency, respectively, including for the purpose of suppressing acts of terrorism. However, such criteria are not clearly defined in relation to terrorist threats - internal, and even more so external. Nevertheless, in recent years it has been increasingly necessary to state that the legal regime of a state of emergency and martial law is often the only adequate form of response to large-scale manifestations of terrorism. That is why it seems necessary to conceptually (and in detail - in legislation) fix the parameters for assessing terrorism in relation to armed methods of struggle, as well as other anti-constitutional manifestations.
First of all, it is advisable to project certain provisions of the military doctrine onto the state strategy of control over terrorism and extremism. For example, in the block of issues related to international terrorism, it is proposed to extrapolate the situation of aggression (paragraph 1 of Section II of the Military Doctrine) to an act of international terrorism with state participation. In this context, Russia could refer to its right to "use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and other troops to repel aggression against it" in the face of terrorist formations based on the territory of another state, with the simultaneous mandatory introduction of martial law in areas adjacent to the area of armed invasion militants.
Some authors propose generally to single out in the Federal Constitutional Law "On Martial Law" the section "Maintaining the regime of martial law in areas of internal conflicts using the means of armed violence." The main goals of introducing such a regime would be: restoration of legality and constitutional order; stabilization of the social and political situation; ensuring state and public security; protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, provision of necessary assistance to the population; creation of conditions for the settlement of conflicts by political methods. Along with this, it is proposed to supplement Art. 87 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with the norm that martial law can be introduced not only in the event of aggression against Russia, but also in the event of armed encroachments on the constitutional order that threaten national security and the territorial integrity of the state
However, such a broad basis for the imposition of martial law seems redundant, since in the event of internal threats, the measures envisaged by the state of emergency are quite adequate (to a large extent repeating the restrictions and special powers enshrined in the Federal Constitutional Law "On Martial Law"). But it is really expedient and practically important to clarify clearly both in the anti-terrorist legislation and (if necessary) in the aforementioned federal constitutional laws of the grounds for the use of the appropriate emergency measures in the case of the fight against terrorism.
In particular, this would provide clear legal grounds for restrictions on mercenaries fighting on the side of Chechen fighters. As you know, during the first and second Chechen campaigns, the practice of filtration camps caused considerable criticism from various Russian and foreign human rights activists. But in relation to martial law, special powers of internment (isolation) "in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law of citizens of a foreign state at war with the Russian Federation" are quite legitimate. Thus, qualifying the invasion of terrorist groups from the territory of another state with the assistance or obvious (intentional) connivance of the latter as aggression would create a clear legal basis for using the martial law regime against the corresponding terrorist threat, as well as international legal mechanisms of self-defense.
| " |
Law / 5. Criminal Law and Criminology
S.V. Mamontov
South - Russian State University of Economics and Service, Shakhty, Russia
Terrorism as an instrument of conflict socio-political clash
Terrorism is a small model of war (according to the definition of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation V. Ustinov - a special type of war), which starts and stops at his own discretion, as a rule, the initiator of hostilities himself. Terrorism uses part of the military arsenal of coercion, suppression and dictatorship, skillfully disguises itself in the protective colors of war. Developers and perpetrators of terrorist acts borrow the tactics of combat skills and techniques of regular troops, special services, their own and other countries. They "take lessons" in military affairs from former adversaries, recruit regular and irregular (partisan) insurgent forces into their detachments.
Terrorism leads a "nomadic lifestyle", from local conflict to conflict, travels with mercenaries, replenishing combat experience, improving. Terrorism is mobile. He is able to change positions, change the theater of military operations. For example, having achieved a tactical success or lost on one flank, the "Generalsatab of Landsknechtov" freezes the hostilities, but continues to blackmail their opponents without resorting to force. Despite the periodic "dormant state" of the combat cells, the preparation of its structures does not stop for a single day, the analysis and control of the situation in the regions and states of interest to the "managers of international terrorism" does not stop. The structures that plan and execute radical actions of political struggle are constantly being improved. The tactics of violence are being refined, the arsenal of forces and means is being updated.
Terrorism is susceptible to scientific and technical innovations and, unlike regular armies, is re-arming faster. Thanks to new technological developments, terrorism is capable of creating an "asymmetric threat" to states with the help of chemical and biological weapons. Both can fall into the hands of extremists: a) from "unstable regimes"; b) due to possible flaws in the security system. Sabotage at nuclear power facilities, hydraulic structures, chemical industry enterprises can lead to irreparable consequences affecting the interests of the world community.
An act of terrorism is a kind of instrument of a conflicting socio-political clash that arises at a certain stage of ripening of social contradictions, when they are not removed in a timely manner and one of the opposing sides (or both at once), in view of the actual or imaginary infringement of their interests and rights, turns to terror. in this way to radically resolve the conflict and eliminate contradictions. To determine the most adequate characteristics of terrorism, the starting point can be a provision according to which not all violence is terrorism, but all terrorism is violence, physical or psychological. Terrorism appears to be a strategy by which an out-of-control group can bring about violent social change:
a) coup d'état,
b) uprising,
c) guerrilla warfare.
Political terrorism can be:
Rallying,
Demonstration,
Confrontational
Provocative.
Rallyingis aimed at uniting organizations or structures of an extremist persuasion.
Demonstrationis intended to ensure widespread awareness or popularity of any terrorist organization, its ideology, as well as to show strength and readiness for decisive action. The most characteristic indicator of this manifestation of terrorism was the events of September 5, 1972 at the XX Olympic Games in Munich, when members of the Arab extremist organization "Black September" first seized and then shot Israeli athletes participating in the Olympic Games. The time of this bloody action, its place and form - everything was calculated for the maximum propaganda effect.
Confrontationalmanifests itself in the use of violence in the struggle of opposing organizations, movements, political blocs, government structures.
The perpetrators or subjects of terrorist acts can be: the state, its special services, international or national terrorist organizations and centers, political, religious movements and all kinds of parties, extremist sects, criminal, including international, organizations, clans, as well as groups of citizens and individuals seeking to achieve their goals using terrorist methods.
According to the scale of its impact, terrorism is subdivided into:
Ø to internal (subjects are citizens or organizations of their own country, and the consequences of acts do not go beyond its borders),
Ø and international, when as a result of the actions of subjects - citizens or organizations of one or several countries - there is an impact on international relations, international legal order.
In turn, domestic terrorism can also be classified into:
Ø statewhen violence, for example, against the opposition is carried out by the state itself through the security forces;
Ø pro-government, when it is carried out by non-governmental organizations or associations in the interests of protecting power and, as a rule, is supported by this power;
Ø oppositionwhen unlawful violence is directed against state institutions;
Ø inter-party, finding manifestations in the course of political struggle, and others.
By its nature, the origins of terrorism are political, religious (including sectarian), criminal and personal.
In terms of means and forms, it can be traditional, when firearms, edged weapons, explosives, poisons and other methods of threats and murders known from ancient times are used, and technological, when the latest advances in information and computer technologies, radio electronics, nuclear technology are used for criminal purposes. ...
Depending on the situation, terrorism can be systemic, offensive and massive, using the tactics of unpredictable attacks. In this way, it has a destabilizing effect on both individuals and society as a whole. In conditions of total terror, no one can feel safe. First, anxiety in the face of the unknown, then fear-mongering (“fear is the ultimate goal, not a by-product of terrorism”). Terrorism in this context becomes “a way of managing society through preventive intimidation” and is distinguished by objects of influence. An intermediate or immediate goal is the victims of a specific act, and the final or main goal is a blow to the authorities and the general population, according to public opinion as a whole. This is the so-called "collective act". Its goal is to destabilize the position of government, demoralize or create panic in society as a whole.
ModernThe media, especially television, voluntarily or involuntarily enhance the effect of a terrorist attack. Thus, according to the Public Opinion Foundation, the day after the Nord-Ost tragedy, 68% of the respondents expected a terrorist attack at their place of residence - from a Penza village to a Far Eastern city. And 70% of the respondents experienced a sense of horror. 24% of viewers who watched violent television coverage of terrorist attacks experienced post-traumatic stress disorder.
At the same time, terrorists direct their actions simultaneously at several objects: specifically tactical, as a rule, declared terrorists, as well as broader strategic goals are pursued, which may be implied taking into account the choice of tactics and goals of terrorists.
Terrorists, taking hostage residents of Budennovsk, spectators of the performance "Nord-Ost", demonstrated their intention to "stop Russia's aggression in Chechnya." The organizers of these actions obviously understood that a violent response to violence was counterproductive, but they deliberately took extreme measures. As E. Primakov rightly noted, regardless of motivation, "terror ... never had and does not have a historical perspective."
With all the abundance of definitions, the classifiers, in our opinion, make a mistake, since they do not limit the concept of "terrorism" as a form of violent resolution of the conflict from other forms of violence, including legitimate ones. Many of these categories either duplicate the classification of extremism, or fix one of the inherent features of all manifestations of terrorism (any type of terrorism affects psychology, turns into a form of political struggle, and is regarded as a crime in terms of its legal component).
This conclusion is also supported by the circumstances that, unlike, say, an armed rebellion, a riot that can arise spontaneously, a terrorist act (a series of terrorist attacks), as a rule, is carefully, that is, deliberately prepared. The author disagrees with Harun Yahya, who claims that "Terrorists indiscriminately identify the targets of their attack." First, the militants, the perpetrators of the armed action, plan in detail the "action of intimidation", often envisaging several options agreed with the rest of the participants at the place and time of the terrorist attack. Secondly, the rebels, participants in the riot, captured by the impulse, the elements of the uprising, are not necessarily guided by selfish motives. Whereas terrorists are paid "for the risk." For example, militants and members of terrorist groups in the North Caucasus have strict tariffs: for blowing up a car, armored personnel carrier, tank, installing a land mine, etc. Terrorism is a profitable business. This does not exclude the moral encouragement of militants, incentives fueled by fanaticism, xenophobia, and personal motives of revenge.
So, taking into account the extreme social danger and cruelty of acts of terror, their antisociality and inhumanity, terrorism can be defined as a social phenomenon consisting in the unlawful use of extreme forms of violence or the threat of violence to intimidate opponents in order to achieve specific goals. Despite the different approach of scientists in various spheres of social sciences to the concept of terrorism, it is possible to highlight its common features, such as: certain actions; the most dangerous forms of violence; committing socially dangerous actions in relation to the life, health of people, their rights and legitimate interests; the type of political violence committed with the aim of changing the political legal order; a way to achieve goals in solving various problems in conjunction with illegal actions.
Terrorism accused Ustinov Vladimir Vasilievich
Terrorism is a special kind of war
Terrorism is a special kind of war
The methods used by terrorists to organize military formations include the recruitment of professional military personnel (mercenaries) and the use of military tactics in clashes with the police or the army. First of all, various terrorist formations are mastering the methods of guerrilla warfare. In response, we note that in the future, the nature of counterinsurgency and counterinsurgency actions will increasingly acquire an anti-terrorist orientation, which does not contain traditional rules and certain national borders.
Based on the data released by the US Department of State and the US Department of Justice, it can be said that bin Laden used al-Qaeda members, as well as terrorists recruited by it, to actually start an open war, which the US had declared long ago. Now there are few doubts about it.
Finally, the obvious internationalization of terrorist groups, expressed in mutual assistance to each other in the training of militants, in the acquisition of weapons, the creation of mixed detachments, in obtaining financial support and in coordinating actions in the implementation of terrorist acts, gave rise to speak of terrorism as a "low-intensity conflict" - its own kind of a special kind of war.
It is hypothetically logical to go even further and characterize terrorism as a “war of the XX-XXI centuries”. Egyptian political scientist M. Said-Ahmed noted: “Terrorist development, which has reached unforeseen levels in the military field, has led to the fact that war in the classical sense of the word has become impossible, if not absurd. Since the absurdity of war does not mean the end of the conflict, the struggle now threatens to take other forms. Terrorism can be viewed as a continuation of the war, and not only as a hostile policy pursued by 'other means'. "
However, it is hardly possible to put a complete sign of equality between the punishment for unleashing a war and the punishment for terrorism. Equalization in relation to local conflicts can lead to justification of any most harsh response from the state, despite the fact that the forces of the parties are obviously not equal. In addition, the response of the state can affect a wide segment of the civilian population, some of which sympathize with terrorists because of their political views, religious beliefs or simply family ties, but also have a far from negative attitude towards the “offended” state. Therefore, it is necessary to draw clear, visible boundaries between war and terrorism as forms of violent conflict.
Being different forms of ideologically motivated violence aimed at directly or indirectly influencing the government, terrorism and war are usually differentiated according to the degree of intensity and scale of violence, but these signs are external and, as the recent events of the XX-XXI centuries have shown, are very conditional. An analysis of some of the definitions of terrorism gives an idea of the problems that exist in the issue of differentiating it from various forms of war. Tactically, war is defined as “a confrontation between two or more autonomous groups that triggers authorized, organized, protracted hostilities. The whole group or, in most cases, part of it is involved in these actions in order to improve its material, territorial, social, political or psychological state, or, in general, to realize the chances of survival. " Or, more succinctly, as K. Clausewitz puts it: "war is an act of violence aimed at forcing the enemy to do our will."
However, according to many indicators, this definition can be applied equally well to terrorist activity.
If we use the thesis of K. Clausewitz that war, like terrorism, is the continuation of politics by other means, then defining terrorism from the point of view of its criminological essence, we can try to define it with a rather “fresh” formula: “terrorism is deliberate destruction, damage , the seizure of any object, including individuals, or other violent actions against them or the threat of such actions are accompanied by the simultaneous advancement of political, economic or other socially significant demands. " In fact, military actions can be designated as a similar characteristic, with the only difference that the above formula is intended to characterize terrorism as illegitimate violence, while war (without taking into account its motivation) is traditionally considered the highest dangerous form of legitimate violence. At the same time, terrorist violence is not the same as military violence. We will need all these concepts and formulations more than once to understand all the different aspects of terrorism in the North Caucasus, Afghanistan, the Old and New Worlds.
In the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of 15.06.2001, terrorism is understood as “an act aimed at causing the death of any civilian or any other person who does not take an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict , or cause him grievous bodily harm, as well as cause significant damage to any material object, as well as organizing, planning such an act, aiding in its commission, abetting him, when the purpose of such an act, by virtue of its nature or context, is to intimidate the population, violate public safety or force the authorities or an international organization to take any action or refrain from doing it. " (I keep not only the essence, but also all the ornateness of the wording.)
In the political science dictionary, terrorism is characterized as "a method of political struggle, which consists in the systematic use of unlimited, unrelated to military violence, aimed at intimidating and suppressing political and other opponents." Terrorism includes the murder of politicians, government officials and ordinary citizens, the organization of explosions, attacks on banks, weapons depots, hijacking aircraft, etc. Terrorists rely mainly on the psychological effect of their actions, and not on a military-strategic victory ... Military strategists and terrorist strategists have different goals and objectives, although the methods can often be common. And the methods for them "justify the action."
But if at the interstate level there is a certain consensus on, for example, which acts are considered direct aggression and which are international terrorism, then in a situation with internal terrorism in relation to an internal armed conflict, the situation is much more complicated.
There are no rules governing what is forbidden and what is allowed in unconventional warfare. Often the same sanctions are imposed by the state on terrorists and guerrillas, who know that they will be punished the same, but at the same time they also realize that terrorist activities are often associated with less risk and lower costs than guerrilla warfare in compliance with all laws and customs of war. , but, as a rule, it is much more effective in its consequences. In this situation, guerrillas often resort to terrorist tactics.
In this case, the task is to provide the guerrillas with an alternative: to establish criteria for distinguishing between the rules of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, to determine what becomes legitimate (in terms of international standards) and what does not. Thus, it will be necessary to create a single “template” by which the actions of participants in all armed conflicts should be assessed.
Originally, the term "guerrilla warfare" was used to describe military operations carried out by irregulars behind enemy lines or by local residents against the occupying forces. Guerrilla warfare is a long and exhausting war, with a progressive increase in violence, with blurred boundaries, a moving line of contact that emphasizes the human factor. During the course of a war, partisans become regular soldiers until the victory or defeat of one of the parties. It is no accident that in many countries now terrorists prefer to call themselves partisans, thereby claiming the apparent legitimacy of their own actions. Literature played a significant role in the poeticization of the image of the partisans. It is enough to recall "Hadji Murat" by Leo Tolstoy, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Ernest Hemingway or "Chouana" by Honore de Balzac to understand the reasons for the rather familiar and quite loyal public perception of the very concept of "guerrilla warfare."
But the events of the last decades of the 20th century have made their own adjustments to the traditional assessment of the actions of partisans. The term "guerrilla warfare" began to be applied indiscriminately to many types of revolutionary wars and terrorist acts (aircraft hijacking, kidnapping). They ignore the fact that guerrilla warfare and terrorist activity, as methods of organizing and conducting military operations, by a weaker adversary (in numbers, equipment, etc.) in relation to an objectively much stronger (state) adversary are just tactics and the propaganda method.
It can be concluded that as long as the laws of war and the rules of armed conflicts are observed, the actions of the side opposing the government should be regarded as a guerrilla war. As soon as the war ends and breaking the rules becomes a strategy (innocent victims, cultivating fear), this is terrorism. And it should be assessed not on the scale of dangerous war crimes, but on the classification of international law - as an international crime.
Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence (or the threat of violence) against predominantly non-military targets to psychologically influence the civilian population and thereby achieve political goals. Guerrilla warfare should be viewed as the use of violence (or the threat of such violence) against military objectives in order to influence the armed forces, security services and state authorities and in this way solve military-political problems. The differentiation is carried out both by objects and by the goals of the impact.
From the book Criminal Code of the Russian Federation author Laws of the Russian FederationArticle 205. Terrorism 1. Terrorism, that is, the commission of an explosion, arson or other actions that create the danger of death of people, causing significant property damage or the occurrence of other socially dangerous consequences, if these actions are committed with the aim of violating
From the book Securing an Educational Institution the author Sergey Petrov From the book Social Emergencies and Protection from Them the author Gubanov Vyacheslav MikhailovichChapter 7 Terrorism The current international situation, despite the positive changes of the last decade, can hardly be called stable. And one of the reasons for this is the scale of terrorism, which today is acquiring a truly worldwide character, which prompts
From the book Criminal Procedure Law the author Marina Nevskaya7.1. Modern terrorism: origins and characteristics There is a fairly stable opinion in the public consciousness that terrorism is as old as the world. However, this is not entirely true, since terrorism is not old, but violence that causes people
From the book Handbook of a Notary the author Gongalo Bronislav Michislavovich11.2 Information Wars and Information Terrorism The problems of information security of the state are sufficiently fully covered in the Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation. Let us dwell on two of them: the problem of information wars and information
From the book Terrorism Accused the author Ustinov Vladimir Vasilievich45. Special order of the trial. Consideration of the case in a special order is possible subject to the conditions provided for in parts 1 and 2 of Art. 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation: 1) the accused must agree with the charge brought against him; 2) he must also apply for a ruling on his
From the book Criminology. Selected lectures the author Antonyan Yuri Miranovich§ 4. The special nature of the notarial functions 1. The special nature of the notarial functions The functions reflect the main directions of the activity of the notary system, showing the meaningful significance of notarial activity. Generally, notarial functions are of a special nature,
Search
We can notify you about new articles,