Terrorism
in sentence
1692 examples of Terrorism in a sentence
But it was not until 1934 that the assassination of King Alexander I of Yugoslavia and French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou prompted the League of Nations to make the first attempt to create international judicial mechanisms to confront
terrorism.
To date, 19 “sectorial” conventions on
terrorism
have been signed, covering terrorist bombings, nuclear terrorism, the financing of terrorism, acts against air and maritime security, and acts against internationally protected persons.
But a global legal mechanism to combat
terrorism
in all its forms has remained out of reach.
Every attempt to create one has foundered on important disagreements among countries, most notably about how to define
terrorism
and whether it includes acts committed by armed forces and freedom fighters.
Most recently, an effort to place
terrorism
under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was dropped due to the lack of a universally accepted definition and the additional workload that such cases would mean.
Such a court would be empowered to prosecute any act of
terrorism
perpetrated after its creation, offering desperately needed assistance to countries with weak legal systems and providing a strong deterrent to would-be terrorists.
The ICT would have complementary jurisdiction to both national courts and the ICC, intervening only when domestic bodies were unable or unwilling to try a
terrorism
case or when the crimes committed were outside the ICC’s jurisdiction.
To be sure, the creation of such a court would face difficulties, the most important of which remains the lack of consensus on what constitutes the crime of
terrorism.
But we believe that a powerful legal instrument in the global fight against
terrorism
would quickly prove indispensable – easily justifying the effort devoted to its creation.
Now, populists blame her for not just refugees, but for terrorism, too.
Modi and Trump also demonstrated additional clarity and solidarity on confronting terrorism, by asking Pakistan to do more to disrupt extremist sanctuaries in its territory.
Instead of demanding a return to a time before terrorism, we must become more alert to the risks it poses – not only to our safety, but also to our values and commitment to the rule of law – and do our part to minimize them.
It was strengthened in the course of the war against Islamist terrorism, in which the Kurds have been the civilized world’s staunchest – and sometimes solitary – spearhead.
If this determination, and Pakistan’s ensuing diplomatic isolation, prompts Pakistani generals to rethink their policy of sponsoring
terrorism
as an instrument of state policy, peace between the neighbors could once again become a possibility.
There is the need to protect other states’ citizens from Islamic State
terrorism.
Despite these two decisions, it might have been possible for the Turkish security forces to continue protecting the country from both Islamist and Kurdish
terrorism.
Now, Turkey is becoming an economically weakened autocracy, wracked by
terrorism
and unable to defend itself, much less to help NATO project power.
While Americans certainly mourn the dead and support the city of Boston, there has been a kind of penetration into the national consciousness that, after the 2001 attacks, America’s leaders used the bogeyman of
terrorism
to encroach on individual rights, fund almost every conceivable domestic-security boondoggle, and advance the self-interested agendas of the defense and surveillance industries.
Perhaps Americans have moved closer to understanding that they can and must fight
terrorism
in a civilized way, as free and thoughtful people.
Unlike Yeltsin, however, Putin won't give up and expects that he can take advantage of the fact that America will be too busy fighting
terrorism
and WMD proliferation, rearranging the Middle East, and containing China to object too strongly.
Suddenly, a policy purportedly intended to protect Canadians from Islamist
terrorism
became a policy that offended Canadians’ sense of who they were: an open, compassionate society.
Can Democracy Defeat
Terrorism?
More importantly, skeptics also doubt the validity of the administration’s argument linking democracy and reduction of
terrorism.
But democracy is not the only instrument for a transformation that addresses the roots of
terrorism.
Democratization can surely help remove some of the sources of rage that fuel terrorism, but it is only part of the solution.
In Asia, we all are facing the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles, as well as non-traditional security threats, including terrorism, violent extremism, and cyber-attacks on our businesses, our social and civic infrastructure, and our official institutions.
Who else would have shown Afghanistan's dead children on prime-time TV, while denouncing the use of
terrorism
to counter
terrorism?
Nobody worried about foreign ownership of US ports as long as the owner was a British company; the new fears reflect the belief that Dubai might be a channel for Islamic fundamentalism and
terrorism.
The most obvious reason for increased worries about security in America is the challenge of meeting the threat of
terrorism
after the attacks of September 2001.
Now, however, policymakers admit that it was precisely the persistence of secular Arab autocracies that encouraged Islamist
terrorism.
Back
Next
Related words
Against
International
Which
Global
Fight
Security
Nuclear
World
About
Threat
Other
Their
Change
There
Would
Military
Countries
Climate
Political
Should
