Abstract:

In the aftermath of 9/11, a vast scholarly debate has arisen to redefine the highly contested concept of terrorism. On one side, political authorities and security institutions gradually expanded the term’s meaning. On the other side, many scholars intended to give an objective and precise definition to prevent the abuse of fundamental rights and freedoms in the name of the war against terrorism. During the same period, despite the increasing attention given to the rise of international terrorism, in the US, another type of terrorism – domestic terrorism – has shown up and triggered a series of debates. In the 2000s, the FBI defined eco-terrorism as the most dangerous threat for the US as ecological groups damaged the property of innocent civilian people and committed terrorist attacks. This paper analyzes two ecological and animal rights movements (Earth Liberation Front, ELF and Animal Liberation Front, ALF). It focuses on these movements’ strategies and activities, such as arsons, monkey- wrenching and property damage to decide whether they can be classified as terrorists. For doing that, the article uses Ganor’s definition of terrorism. Through the debate on eco-terrorism, the article aims to put forward the still imprecise part of Ganor’s definition and demonstrate the necessary criteria to be established to provide a well-structured definition for the concept of terrorism. In this regard, the definitions suggested for terrorism must decide whether an act is accepted as violent when directed toward a civilian, or property damage can be conceptualized as violent. Moreover, the newly established definition must clearly explain who or what civilian targets are. Finally, the acts committed by the ELF and ALF must be evaluated on the ground of fear they provoked among people. This last criterion reveals the missing part of Ganor’s definition.

Keywords: