CHINA’S INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIZATION? A CASE STUDY OF THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

Abstract

In 2015, China procured a formal and statutory legal definition of terrorism for the first time. Where does the definition stand in comparison to prior Chinese state conceptions? How does the definition compare to other states internationally? The standard model of comparison between states lacks cohesion—academics war over the basic definition of terrorism (or simply invent one) to cover-up a gap in the literature of Terrorism Studies. The weakness is mirrored on a global scale, where no consensus-level definition of terrorism has been reached. Often, the focus is on actor/action senses of the phenomena, and not a legalistic definition. Despite the lack of consensus regarding terrorism, I will evaluate the general definitions in international organizations, conventions, regional agreements, and individual countries, and compare these to China’s definitions. Centers of socialization, chiefly supra-national organizations such as the United Nations, international organizations, treaties, etc. are often forums of exchange and deposit for accountability between States and defining terrorism—these organs are my data source. I do not evaluate, however, the outcomes of how states and organizations define terrorism, focusing exclusively on the definitions themselves. Through this analysis, I hope to reach several conclusions: 1) identify trends in definitional composition between and among States; 2) identify China’s own path of definitional evolution; 3) compare China’s evolution internationally to gain insight into either China’s definitional socialization or resilience to potential international norms.