Citation

Goertzel T. Terrorism 1988; 11(1): 1-12.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1988)

DOI

10.1080/10576108808435695

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Does the fact that one side's "terrorist" is usually another's "freedom fighter" mean that there is no possibility of agreeing on ethical norms applicable to armed conflicts between governments and their opponents? There are no easy answers. We cannot simply condemn all violence against established governments; surely, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were right to defend themselves. Nor can we accept the cynical view that ethical judgments are irrelevant, that violence is justified when it succeeds, that might makes right. This view is morally repugnant and impractical. In practice, we must make judgments before we know which actions will succeed and which will fail. In today's world, governments and revolutionary movements frequently seek approval and support from deliberative bodies which claim to uphold ethical standards. Debates in the United States Congress about supporting anti‐Sandinista rebels and debates at the United Nations about the Middle East, Ireland, Puerto Rico, and various African struggles frequently raise the question of the legitimacy of revolutionary/terrorist violence. Some revolutionary movements, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and the African National Congress, have been given official diplomatic status and have accepted, in principle, an obligation to act within international law. Gradually, the world community is working toward a set of ethical standards for revolutionary conflicts. To be successful, these standards must be acceptable to people whose thinking about ethical issues is based on very different historical experiences and philosophical traditions. In particular, they must deal with the issues raised by Marxist as well as non‐Marxist ethical thinking.

Language: en