What is Terrorism? Assessing Domestic Legal Definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-terrorism powers were largely enacted as an emergency response\nto September 11 and later terrorist attacks, and yet they now appear to be a\npermanent feature of domestic law. How governments apply these antiterrorism\npowers depends upon the scope of statutory definitions of\nterrorism. This article develops three key criteria for assessing the\nappropriateness of definitions of terrorism in domestic legislation. The first\ntwo criteria relate to the principle of legality. They require definitions of\nterrorism to be drafted in language which (1) gives reasonable notice of the\nprohibited conduct, (2) confines the operation of legislation to its intended\npurposes, and (3) is drafted consistently in comparable jurisdictions. The\narticle then tests seven definitions of terrorism against these three criteria. It\nfocuses on legal definitions of terrorism in the United Kingdom, Canada,\nAustralia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, and the United States. The\narticle not only examines the statutory language used to define terrorism in each jurisdiction, but also examines how these definitions have been applied\nand interpreted since their enactment. This testing process suggests that\nmuch remains to be done to improve the clarity, scope and consistency of\ndefinitions of terrorism in domestic legislation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".