Haig Khatchadourian on Terrorism   (in James E. White text)

Thesis  
Terrorism cannot be morally justified under just war theory, and it cannot be justified under a theory of basic human rights.

First Problem: Define terrorism in a morally neutral way. For example, if we use the word "murder" in the definition, then we've already assumed it is wrong. Also, the definition cannot be so broad that it also includes all cases of political assassination and guerrilla warfare (some of which might be moral even if all terrorism is immoral).

Proposed definition:
Coercion by threat of force or by actual use of force that is directed at immediate targets in order to indirectly target other persons, motivated by any of 4 goals:

• Predatory Terrorism (aimed at monetary gain)
• Retaliatory Terrorism (aimed at revenge)
• Political Terrorism (aimed at political change)
• Moralistic/Religious Terrorism (aimed at a moral or religious end)

Second Problem: As defined above, is any terrorism morally justified?

JUST WAR CRITERIA & Terrorism

Since terrorism that is willing to kill people is similar to war, we might examine it in terms of traditional just war criteria. If we take self-defense and preservation of life as the most plausible just cause, the first three motivations for terrorism fail to obtain just cause, because they are not motivated by preservation of life. Only religious terrorism can claim to have a cause that can set aside normal standards of just cause.

The most relevant of the other criteria are these:

• Violence and killing are necessary -- there is no other option: they are a last resort (jus ad bellum)
• Principle of discrimination is applied for each attack (jus in bello)
• Proportionality of means to end, both politically (jus ad bellum) and militarily (jus in bello)

To meet the discrimination requirement, terrorists must claim that the people they target are as morally culpable as those they aim to influence. No plausible examples can be found.

Regarding  the requirement of proportionality of means to end under jus ad bellum, the political ends to be achieved are not clearly measurable, so it is impossible to establish when the decision to engage in terrorism will constitute a proportional level of destruction/death.

Furthermore, no terrorist campaign of the 20th century ever accomplished its political goals!

Regarding  the requirement of proportionality of means to end under jus in bello, the limited strategic ends are neither clearly defined nor likely to be achieved. In all observed cases, the known destructive consequences outweigh the known positive results. Furthermore, specific acts of terrorism usually have the opposite effect of the one intended by the terrorists.

HUMAN RIGHTS & Terrorism

Suppose that one does not regard the traditional doctrine of just war as relevant. In that case, there are no general criteria that seem relevant except human rights, including a "negative human right to life." (A negative right prohibits something, and a negative human right to life prohibits interference with a person's mental and physical security/integrity.) 

To justify terrorist attack, the attack must satisfy two conditions:

1. It is the lesser of two evils
2. Violates no one's equal rights as persons

Even if it is sometimes the lesser of two evils, terrorism is designed to coerce and to deny the equal autonomy of other persons.