Terrorism is a type of violence that became prominent in the international security agenda after the 9/11 attacks against the United States in 2001.
Nevertheless, terrorism has a long history in the world and despite that, there is not yet a concept defining it.
Of course, different organizations have coined proposals to distinguish terrorism from other forms of violence, including the United Nations, Interpol, and several governments.
It is desirable that a globally agreed legal definition of terrorism is coined, since experts consider it could guide a normative legal framework, aimed at guaranteeing the principles of the rule of law and the respect of human rights.
More important: a consensus definition of terrorism may prevent politicians to qualify violent acts and actors as terrorism/terrorists, without thinking twice. For instance, to Israel, Yaser Arafat was a terrorist -with whom Yizhak Rabin eventually agreed on the Oslo Agreement on a National Palestine Authority and a peace plan. Nelson Mandela, was a terrorist according to the white apartheid regime, whereas for most of the population was the symbol of freedom and the founder of a South Africa aimed at reconciliation. Ronald Reagan considered the contras as “freedom fighters” whilst for the Sandinista government in Nicaragua they were terrorists. Clearly a consensus, legal and clear definition accepted by the international community would limit the arbitrary use of this concept.
As suggested, there are several definitions by different agencies, international bodies and governments. For example, the FBI explains that terrorism is “the unlawful, threatened, or actual use of violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population, furthering political or social objectives.” Interpol characterizes terrorism as “a multifaceted, transnational crime involving violence—or threats of violence—designed to induce terror, often utilizing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) materials, targeting civilians, or exploiting digital channels.” The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC) views terrorism as a serious, multifaceted criminal threat rather than adopting a single, standardized definition. It focuses on acts of violence targeting civilians to provoke terror, intimidation, or coercion for political/ideological goals. The United Nations defines terrorism primarily through Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) as criminal acts against civilians, intended to cause death or injury, provoke a state of terror, or compel a government/organization to act. It is characterized by violent, often non-state methods, regardless of motivation, designed to intimidate populations. In Mexico, terrorism is legally defined as organized violence using explosives, toxic substances, or firearms to cause alarm, fear, or terror, threaten national security, or force decisions from authority. While historically linked to communist guerrillas in the 1960s, modern discussions often blur the lines between terrorism and the extreme violence of organized crime.
These concepts may collide with what several governments consider as a justification for terrorism. For instance, on October 2001, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks against US targets, Qatar’s representative to the United Nations suggested that due to the absence of an explicit definition of terrorism, it was important to distinguish between terrorism and acts of national resistance against foreign occupation. Jordan’s representative also called for a distinction to be drawn between the legitimate use of force and terrorism. He said the use of force was justified in cases of self-defense and when used against foreign occupiers to achieve self-determination.
Speaking about lines that blur, US President Donald Trump as well as previous administrations have focused on narco-terrorism, a term that adds more complexity to the concept of terrorism. The US concept of narco-terrorism refers to drug traffickers using violence, intimidation, and corruption to influence government policy, hinder anti-drug law enforcement, and protect their criminal enterprises. It connects organized crime and terrorism, often targeting state institutions to disrupt rule of law, with prominent historical examples including the Medellín Cartel's actions in Colombia, or more recently, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in Mexico.
The problem with linking organized crime and terrorism is that although both may cooperate in specific circumstances, they are different in nature since organized crime privileges economic and financial goals whereas terrorism is more interested in political gains. No one denies they may cross their ways, but to better understand one and the other it is suggested to clarify the specific characteristics they have.
In general terms it is widely accepted that terrorism is a political act, that has two targets: the first one, that involves violence that produces mortal and injured victims, generally civilians, with wide media coverage; and the second one, normally a government or authority that is the real target of such actions. Terrorists dislike the status quo and pretend to change it via terror and violence. They use the surprise factor in their favor since they know when they are going to attack, how and with what. This is why governments need to favor intelligence gathering to anticipate terrorist attacks. That said, even the most accomplished intelligence services have not been able to anticipate several important attacks, including the already mentioned 9/11 terrorist actions against US targets in US soil; neither the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023; to mention a few.
Without a clear concept one may wonder how to analyze terrorism in the world. Well, The Institute for Economics and Peace, created by the technology mogul Steve Killelea, is a think tank aimed at analyzing global challenges. This is done primarily through a few publications such as The Global Peace Index, Mexico Peace Index, the Global Peace Report and The Global Terrorism Index, among others. Most of them are published annually. Speaking about the later, it ranks countries according to terrorist activity. The most recent one, the Global Terrorism Index 2026 (available at https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Global-Terrorism-Index-2026-Report.pdf) explains that the Sahel is now the epicenter of terrorism, accounting for half of all terrorist related deaths in 2024 with the number of countries affected increasing.
The report, which analyzes and ranks 163 countries, states that terrorism remains a significant global threat. In 2025, 5 582 people were killed in terrorist attacks across 2 944 incidents. The four terrorist groups responsible for the most deaths in 2025 were Islamic State (IS), Jamaat Nusrat Al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and al-Shabaab. TTP was the only one of these four groups to record an increase in the number of deaths from terrorism over the past year. Of them, the Islamic State and its affiliates remained the world’s deadliest terrorist group in 2025, with the group carrying out attacks in 15 different countries compared to 22 in the prior year.
The report explains that terrorism has expanded all over the world. Of the 163 countries analyzed in the Global Terrorist Index only 25 have not recorded a single terrorist incident since 2007. It is interesting to note that over the past decade the average impact of terrorism has decreased in every region other than sub-Saharan Africa. Deaths from terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa have fallen by 95 per cent in the last ten years. This may change considering the events of this year.
Countries are concerned about border proximity to areas where terrorism develops. Several of the world’s most persistent terrorism hotspots are concentrated along border regions: the Colombia-Venezuela frontier, the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands, the Central Sahel tri-border area, and the Lake Chad Basin. All these hotspots share common features: porous borders, under-governed territory, and connected communities that span national boundaries. Border proximity is a defining feature of modern terrorism. Just over 41 per cent of attacks occur within 50 kilometers of an international border, and 64 per cent occur within 100 km.
Another issue that deserves attention is the radicalization of the youth. The report indicates that youth radicalization has been increasing rapidly in the past three years. Children and adolescents accounted for 42 per cent of all terror-related investigations in Europe and North America in 2025, a threefold increase since 2021.
In 2024, teenagers were involved in nearly two-thirds of Islamic State-linked arrests in Europe, and the total number of terrorist incidents in the West rose to 52, up from 32 the previous year. The average radicalization timeline has contracted dramatically: from 18 months in 2005 to 13 months in 2016. Today, radicalization can occur within a matter of weeks.
The 10 countries more hit by terrorism are Pakistan, Burkina Fasso, Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Syria, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia and Israel. The United States ranks 28, whereas Canada is located at the 53rd position and Mexico, despite the narrative of US President Trump, ranks 87, being of the three, the less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This is interesting considering that in launching the Shield of the Americas last March 7, the US President has identified Mexico as the "epicenter" of cartel violence and narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, stating that cartels are running large parts of the country. Curiously, Mexico was not invited to Florida to the meeting where Trump made such statement.
Of course the methodology used to produce the Global Terrorism Index may not suit everyone but still it is a very interesting piece of information that one may want to take a look to have a view about the way terrorism is evolving, the hot spots, and more challenging how it is reaching the minds and the hearts of the youth.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
