The importance of a legally binding definition of terrorismTerrorism is a tool used by many actors, including states. It is generally defined as acts of violence against civilians to achieve political, religious or ideological goals. However, both in the international system and in the academic sphere, terrorism is a contested term without a legally binding definition. Since the 1970s, the United Nations has been unable to formulate or negotiate a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. The problem arises from the ambiguous and subjective nature of the term terrorism. Disagreement over a legally binding definition centers on state-sponsored terrorism and the failure to create a clear criterion for determining which actions are considered terrorist. Without a legally binding definition, there is no set of rules or characteristics that set the standards that states and other actors must respect. This allows each state to create a definition that best benefits its cause and blurs the ethical uses of certain weapons or tactics. Finally, it makes it more difficult to pursue, prosecute and convict accused terrorists. A legally binding definition will therefore make it possible to clearly understand what is being targeted. It is difficult to arrive at a legally binding definition because terrorism is a very subjective issue. The United Nations has struggled to achieve such a feat precisely because each state has a different opinion on what it considers terrorism. As George Bruce states in his article Definition of Terrorism: Social and Political effect, "Social structure and order, societal governance, and politics depend on good communication, and good communication requires agreement on definitive definitions... middle of paper. .....not only gives states the ability to prosecute terrorists under war crimes laws, but also regulates the tactics a state can use to combat terrorism. The negative effects mentioned by Schaf in my opinion further strengthen this argument. This gives terrorist organizations legitimacy in the eyes of the state and is precisely what most terrorist organizations aim for. Furthermore, it requires terrorist organizations themselves to ultimately follow criteria that would deem them important and legitimate with some right while simultaneously distancing them from attacks on civilians. Schaf emphasized how any military personnel or installation would become a fair target. I think this helps level the playing field against the state's ability to gather information and, furthermore, an attack on combatants would be more welcome than attacks on civilians..