Terrorism: difficulties of definitions
( Pp. 87-90)

The identification of the phenomenon of «terrorism» (and many related terms: violence, anger, hostility, destructiveness, etc.) remains relevant in the modern world. Researchers of various sciences (ethologists, psychobiologists, sociobiologists, genetics, psychopathologists, neuropathologists, clinicians, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, criminologists, political scientists) have brought some accuracy to the phenomenon of «terrorism». Taking into account the difference in their views, disciplinary traditions and paradigms, it is not surprising that contradictions are present in the definitions of this phenomenon. The aim of this invistigation is to study general difficulties in defining the phenomenon «terrorism». Certain factors are identified as the main difficulties in defining «terrorism». To experience difficulties in defining «terrorism» from more or less related phenomena or processes, such as «terror», «partisan war», «war for national independence», «irredentism», «separatism», etc. Attempts to explain the essence of terrorism with the help of the related concepts of «radicalism», «extremism», «terrorist acts», «politics of terror», etc. also a mistake. As a rule, a dangerous and erroneous simplification of the concept of «terrorism» occurs in order to equate it with Islamic fundamentalism or other concepts. There are a number of more or less similar concepts, for example, «Islamism», «religious nationalism», «Islamic fascism», «Islamic radicalism», «fundamentalist radicalism», etc. The definition of a «terrorist act», adopted by the European Union, is such an example of the application of the relevant concepts instead of the concept of «terrorism». Thus, we have identified a range of difficulties regarding the concept of «terrorism». They include the definition of terrorism, with its components, a listing of terrorist organizations and the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for national independence. The above difficulties illustrate the discrepancies regarding the universal definition of «terrorism».

Urusova L.K., (2020), TERRORISM: DIFFICULTIES OF DEFINITIONS. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 4 => 87-90.

Goncharov S.A. Osobennosti terrorizma v Rossii //Aktual nye problemy Evropy. Vyp. 4. Problemy terrorizma. M., 2015. S.47.
Dzhenkins B. Issledovanie terrorizma: opredelitel nye problemy//Daydzhest prava. - Santa-Monika. 1980, №8. S. 101-120.
Dorrin F. Prichiny i posledstviya terroristicheskikh aktov// Zakon i pravo. - Kembridzh. Tom 12. № 3. S. 124-131.
Kabanov P.A. Politicheskiy terrorizm: prichiny i nekotorye mery preduprezhdeniya //Sledovatel . 2019. №3. S. 24.
Komissarov V.S., Emel yanov V.P. Terror, terrorizm, gosudarstvennyy terrorizm : ponyatie i sootnoshenie //Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. 2018. №5. S.78.
Mal tsev V.V. Terrorizm: problema ugolovno-pravovogo regulirovaniya //Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2018. № 8. S. 105.
Urusova L.KH. Agressivnost kak forma proyavleniya deviantnogo povedeniya // Vestnik Vladimirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. Aleksandra Grigor evicha i Nikolaya Grigor evicha Stoletovykh. Seriya: Pedagogicheskie i psikhologicheskie nauki. 2016. № 25 (44). S. 128-132.
Urusova L.KH. Statistika po terrorizmu: vyzov izmeritel nykh tendentsiy v global nom terrorizme//V sbornike: Sovremennye nauchnye issledovaniya v sfere pedagogiki i psikhologii Sbornik rezul tatov nauchnykh issledovaniy. Kirov, 2018. S. 730-736.
KHarrison T. Problemy terroristicheskikh deystviy//Evropeyskiy nauchnyy zhurnal prava. - Del ta Dzh. Press. 2012. Tom 5. № 1. S. 183-189.
SHmidt A. Dzhongman. Terrorizm - problema definitsii// YUzhnyy ZHurnal Mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2014. Tom 16. №.2. S. 77-82.

terrorism, crime, political terrorism, difficulties of definitions, personality, legality, statehood, bioterrorism, cyber terrorism, global terrorism, ecoterrorism.