Home › Q&A: The use of the term "terrorist groups" ›

Q&A;: The use of the term "terrorist groups"

Are there particular areas where humanitarian actors should be careful with using the expression "terrorist group" in order to preserve their neutrality, impartiality and independence? Should we rather use expressions such as "non-state armed groups" or "armed opposition groups"?

Dieudonné Amisi Mutambala, Researcher & Practitioner in Education, Human Rights and Conflict Transformation, Democratic Republic of the Congo

 

Exchange Hub 2: Navigating principled humanitarian action and compliance with counter-terrorism laws and policies

  Information portal   Online event  
  Post a comment and discuss  

 

Disclaimer
This note is informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should always seek advice from an appropriately qualified legal professional on any specific legal enquiry.

Answers

Guest Expert's picture
Guest Expert
15 February 2015
The responder has chosen to have the response to this question available only to members of PHAP. If you are a member and current with your dues, log in to access the full content.
Scott Paul
14 February 2015

The appropriate way to refer to these organizations depends upon your organization’s commitment to and interpretation of humanitarian principles, as well as your organization’s specific risk assessment in the country in question.

Some organizations that subscribe to the principle of neutrality may believe its commitment to neutrality proscribes characterizing organizations as “terrorist.”

Additionally, some organizations believe that characterizing organizations as “terrorist” may put staff, partners or programs at risk.

In those instances, "non-state armed groups," "armed opposition groups," "armed groups opposing the government," or "groups designated by the government of _____ as terrorist organizations."

About the author
Scott Paul is Senior Humanitarian Policy Advisor with Oxfam America.
Sophie Delaunay's picture
Sophie Delaunay
17 February 2015

In MSF we refuse to use the term "terrorist" groups as we consider it a subjective and political denomination. Some states are also considered "terrorist" by others... We usually refer to non-state armed groups or armed opposition groups.

About the author
Sophie Delaunay is executive director of Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in the United States.
PHAP Member's picture
PHAP Member
27 February 2015

There are a number of problems surrounding the use of the word "terrorist" or "terrorist group."

First, "terrorist group" is not a neutral term; it denotes a judgement that a group is criminal in its activities and/ or objectives. It is generally preferable as a humanitarian organization to talk about problems with "acts" that we want to see stop, rather than to label "groups" as being bad or good per se - hence the use of the term "non-state armed group" rather than the variety of possible terms that connote a value judgement: freedom fighters/ rebels/ bandits/ terrorists/ etc.

Second, the term indicates that a group is committing criminal acts and/ or its objective is to do so. However, groups are designated as terrorist groups through an administrative process in the majority of cases, without any charges being pressed, without any court case where the accused can put forward information to support their innocence. Use of the term can therefore be a prejudgment of guilt. Many of these designation processes are inherently political – for example, officials in some governments have admitted they listed groups because another government asked them to. Where designations have been challenged, the designation has been withdrawn in some cases, either in recognition that there were insufficient grounds/ evidence for the listing (this has happened in the US), or a lack of due process (this has happened in Europe).

Third, the term has been used and abused in a multitude of settings and is a convenient way to demonize actions and groups of people by governments. Counterterrorism laws have been used to repress freedom of speech and actions of civil society in some contexts and therefore it is unwise for humanitarians to endorse this use in any setting even though the use may appear to be more justified in certain contexts.

About the author
The author is a consultant focusing on the impact of counterterrorism policies in humanitarian action