Why is it difficult for countries and legal systems to agree on a single definition of terrorism?

Defining terrorism is complex and controversial because the term is often subjective, leading to the common observation that "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter". The difficulty in reaching a universal legal definition stems from several key factors:1

• Political Legitimacy: Defining terrorism solely as "criminal activity" is problematic because it fails to account for political contexts where violence against a government may be viewed as a legitimate struggle for liberation, such as the resistance against the Nazi occupation of France or the African National Congress’s fight against apartheid.1
• Blurred Distinctions: The lines between terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and state-sponsored violence are often obscured. Many countries have historically engaged in international terrorism while framing their actions as support for national liberation movements.1
• Ideological Bias: Because terrorism is a highly stigmatized term, its application is frequently influenced by political opportunism and ideology, making it difficult for international bodies to establish a neutral, universally accepted standard.1
• Jurisdictional Challenges: Legal systems vary in how they categorize violence. While some focus on the criminality of the act, others emphasize the targeting of innocent civilians, yet even these definitions remain flexible and subject to interpretation.1