Rethinking Terrorist Designation amidst Emerging Issues on Accountability under International Criminal Law

Abstract

In combating terrorism globally, affected States have adopted various mechanisms, including the use of proscription orders or terrorists designation, to curb terrorist activities and promote accountability under International Criminal Law. However, the persistent absence of a universally acceptable definition of terrorism continues to undermine these efforts. Consequently, while many countries and international institutions have designated certain organisations and individuals as terrorists, inconsistencies in recognition and enforcement persist across jurisdictions. A major concern arises when designated terrorist groups or individuals successfully seize and exercise control over state apparatus, as such situations often confer de facto legitimacy on them, thereby frustrating mechanisms of accountability and justice. This paper rethinks terrorists designation as a mechanism for combating terrorism amidst these emerging challenges to accountability under international law. Using a doctrinal methodology, it finds that the lack of a universal definition of terrorism has led to fragmented responses and selective treatment of terrorist actors. It further observes that validation of terrorist entities following their takeover of state power entrenches impunity and weakens international criminal accountability. The paper recommends cautious application of proscription orders, enhanced interstate cooperation, and collective denial of legitimacy or recognition to terrorist groups that usurp lawful governments.