International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 16

East, a large number of terrorist movements lost some of their logistical bases and financial
support; for some of them this also meant the loss of their ideological orientation. However,
the shift from political struggle to mere criminal activity (gangsterism, mafias, and cartels)
does not mean that they are less dangerous. From Bali to Mogadishu, from the sandstorms
of In Amenas to the suburbs of Bamako, and from Nairobi to the rue Nicholas Appert, home
to the headquarters of the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, battle-hardened and fanatical
criminals, guerrillas, partisans, bandits, and jihadists intermingle in the grey areas of the
planet--those places abandoned to their fate by the fall of authoritarian regimes. Whether
they are out-of-control ex-guerrillas, “gangster-terrorists,” or the “crazed lone wolves of
Allah,” terrorists today are a dramatic reality as well as an ever-present danger for democratic
countries. We have seen this in the spectacular attacks against the World Trade Center’s Twin
Towers (2001) or more recently with the shootings and hostage taking (January 2015) that
have left France in a state of shock and their tricolor flag at half-mast.
Faced with this modern form of warfare, an energetic response is required, especially
when we consider that the enemy—a many-headed, yet faceless hydra that launches attacks
across a moving front—aims to undermine the very foundations of Western societies. Before
examining the substance of this response (II), noticeably strengthened by a number of recent
laws (March 9, 2004, January 23, 2006, December 21, 2012, and November 13, 2014), we
need to examine what exactly is included within the notion of a terrorist offense (I), a subject
addressed by Albert Camus in Les justes [The Just] in 1949.
I - The Notion of a Terrorist Offense
Before we examine the content of the notion of a terrorist offense (B), we need to
first present an accurate outline of it (A) in as much as, in the absence of a really universal,
shared definition, the boundaries of terrorism are unclear; there are probably more than 200
definitions of terrorism in existence around the world.
A. Defining the scope of the term
International Journal on Criminology
In view of the legal ramifications pertaining to criminal classification (see below), it is
essential to distinguish terrorism from similar yet distinct notions with which it is sometimes
entangled. As a common law offense, we must first of all differentiate terrorism from political
offenses which at certain times in French history (the Ancien régime, the French Revolution,
the Third Republic, the Second World War, and subsequent wars of independence) have
been subject to a rigorous legal regime, considerably softened since the current influence of
benevolent, protective rules.
To the extent that terrorism can include, under certain, sometimes desperate armed
struggle against social, economic, religious, or imperialist oppression, it is somewhat related
to t the concept of resistance. How often are we told that one person’s terrorist is another
person’s freedom fighter? (Jean-François Revel, Terrorisme contre la démocratie.) The
relationship between terrorist acts (“the weapon of the weak”) and political offenses is an
incestuous one. The essential difference is its particular mode of action: the use of terror and
intimidation. Furthermore, how do we distinguish a political offense from a common law
offense? Firstly, it is sometimes the case—and this is the simplest explanation—that legislators
15