سایه امنیت سیاسی بر عنصر انگیزه در جرائم تروریستی

علم حقوق قادر به تبیین دلیل اختلاف‌های موجود و حل‌نشده برای تعریف تروریسم نیست. برای درک این اختلاف‌ها باید تروریسم را مسئله‌ای امنیتی در نظر گرفت که به ادبیات حقوقی راه یافته است. رویکردهای امنیتی متعددی وجود دارد که مبنا قرار دادن هر رویکرد موجب تعریف متفاوت از تروریسم می‌شود. به همین دلیل در این مقاله، بحث به چارچوب نظری مکتب کپنهاگ محدود شده است تا به این پرسش پاسخ داده شود که این رویکرد امنیتی، نگاه دولت‌ها به مفهوم تروریسم و انگیزه رفتار در این جرم را چگونه تبیین می‌کند؟ فرضیه این نوشتار آن است که آسیب‌پذیری امنیتی خاص هر دولت، تاثیراتی مستقیم بر نگاه آن دولت به تهدید تروریسم دارد و بر اساس نوع دولت، انگیزه در تعریف تروریسم دخالت داده می‌شود. این مقاله برای آزمودن این فرض با رویکردی توصیفی-تحلیلی از چارچوب نظری ارائه‌شده توسط باری بوزان در خصوص آسیب‌پذیری دولت‌ها استفاده کرده است تا ارتباط میان عنصر انگیزه در تعریف‌های موجود از جرم تروریستی را با آسیب‌پذیری‌ها و تهدیدها علیه ایده دولت نشان دهد. در این زمینه در این تحقیق به روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی مفهوم تروریسم در اسناد حقوقی برخی دولت‌ها، برای نمونه تاثیر ضعف امنیتی واحد «ملت» و «ایدئولوژی سیاسی» بر تعریف تروریسم بررسی شده است. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که در دولت‌های ضعیف، در صورت امکان امنیتی‌سازی تروریسم، عنصر انگیزه، به‌دلیل ضعف واحد ملت، علیه جدایی‌طلبان مطرح می‌شود و در دولت‌های قوی، به‌دلیل تهدید ایدئولوژی‌های رقیب، در صورت امنیتی‌سازی تروریسم، انگیزه متوجه ایدئولوژی سیاسی رقیب می‌شود.

shadow of political security on the motivation element in terrorist crimes

intrudaction despite lawyers’ and political scientists’ efforts to define terrorism over the last century, a consensus has not been reached, and no universal agreement on a precise legal definition of terrorism exists to date. as long as politicians need to address terrorism in varying security contexts, disagreements among lawyers seem unavoidable due to the overdependence of criminal law on states’ politics. considering terrorism a crime against national security, it can only be analyzed by perceiving these actions as national security threats. the law itself is not capable of resolving these disagreements on the definition of terrorism per se. therefore, to make sense of the existing disagreements, terrorism must be regarded as a security issue that has evolved into a legal concept.traditional security studies lack an extensive perspective on security, often focusing solely on strategic threats, making them unsuitable for clarifying the terrorism concept. for this reason, the copenhagen school, which divides security issues into five categories, has been applied as the theoretical framework for this research to answer this fundamental question: what are the impacts of security factors on states’ views of the legal concept of terrorism? this paper hypothesizes that the specific security vulnerabilities of each state have particular effects on that state’s perception of terrorism threats. to assess this hypothesis, qualitative content analysis method was employed by studying the definitions of terrorism in the legal documents of different countries, revealing the relevance of the motivation element of terrorist crimes in relation to state vulnerabilities using buzan’s framework of political security. it is worth noting that the countries selected by the authors exhibit different vulnerabilities according to buzan’s framework, which categorizes states based on their weaknesses.methodologythe copenhagen school provides two important theories to analyze terrorism: “securitization theory” and “categorization of security.” according to securitization theory, a security matter begins with a securitizing actor and is completed with the acceptance of the target audience. thus, terrorism, as a security threat, must be an intersubjective matter dependent on both actors and audiences. in such circumstances, if criminal law is to be used as a tool for securitization, it cannot be done effectively within its traditional framework due to the nullum crimen sine lege principle. therefore, within customary instruments, politicians are unable to react differently to security matters through criminal law and must instead emphasize the excessive element of “motivation,” which does not play a prominent role in ordinary crimes. therefore, if an actor intends to securitize the motives attributed to a political group, the most effective approach is to emphasize these motives. consequently, a common crime is transformed into a terrorist act based on this element.findingsanother important question, which remains open even after implementing securitization theory, is when or under which circumstances actors securitize the terrorism threat. since terrorism endangers the sovereignty of states within their own realms, it must be analyzed as a political threat. buzan’s analysis of political threats to national security asserts that states’ vulnerabilities in the political sphere are related to the weakness of two elements: “nation” and “political ideology.” therefore, in weak states suffering from a lack of political cohesion and national unity, political security matters are often associated with separatist movements.