its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act. This is a wide definition, which has been criticised for its lack of precision.17 Under the definition, terrorism includes not only action causing death or serious bodily injury, but also “serious damage to public or private property” and any (not only serious) damage that is likely to result in “major economic loss.” This is qualified by a requirement of intent either to intimidate a population, or to “compel a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.” The threat of any such action, where it is “credible or serious,” is also an offence, and it is an offence to attempt terrorist action or to “contribute” to the commission of terrorist offences.18 Some have argued that in relation to armed conflict, the draft Convention, also fails to properly protect those in a legitimate liberation struggle, whilst providing legal protection to those exercising the use of force unlawfully.19 Under the draft Convention, states would be obliged: • to criminalize conduct within the definition; • to prosecute or extradite; and • to co-operate in crime prevention and investigation. The draft Convention also requires states to deny refugee status (in conformity with international human rights law) to those who “there are serious reasons for considering” have been involved in activity within the definition of terrorism contained in the Convention. Other matters related to defining terrorism A solution to the difficulty in defining terrorism may be to focus instead on preventing and/ or punishing conduct that is of a genuinely terrorist nature. In this regard, the international community, although unable to agree on a definition of terrorism, has agreed that certain acts constitute terrorist offences.20 These offences, such as airline hijacking, are now the subject of international treaties. Another example is the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Although it does not define terrorism, it requires member states to create new criminal offences in relation to acts that may lead to terrorism offences already established by the UN treaties and protocols on terrorism. Under the Council of Europe Convention, states have to extradite and/or prosecute in relation to the new preparatory offences created under the Convention. 17 F. Andreu-Guzmán, Terrorism and human rights No. 2 - New challenges and old dangers, International Commission of Jurists Occasional Papers No. 3 (Geneva, 2003), p. 34. 18 The scope of these provisions is problematic from a human rights point of view, in particular as concerns the principle of legality enshrined in Article 15 ICCPR and Article 7 ECHR. Draft Article 2 highlights the tension between the security and the human rights approach: the broad definition of terrorism creates potential difficulties with freedom of expression, freedom of association, fair trial rights and private life. 19 See, for example, op. cit., note 17, Andreu-Guzmán, pp. 34-35. 20 See Chapter 4 below. 24 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights