Negotiating the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism: Major Bones of Contention

Negotiating a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorismhas been a long and intense process. The legal regime to becreated by this instrument has significant legal and politicalconsequences. The main issues, which would frame such consequences,are how to define the crime and decide the scope of applicationof such a Convention. These have proven to be problematic, asnegotiators have revisited issues that have been a source ofdebate for years, even centuries. Who has the right to participatein an armed conflict without being described as a terroristby the Convention? To what extent do we allow the overlap betweeninternational humanitarian law and the Convention's law, ifany? Do military forces have the right to be outside the scopeof the Convention even in peace time? These are the main questionsthat the negotiators have been trying to answer in order toreach a compromise that will satisfy all parties. If genuinepolitical will exists to conclude the Comprehensive Convention,there is no absence of legal answers that can guarantee an effectivelaw enforcement instrument against international terrorism,without infringing on legal rights and positions under internationallaw.