Terrorism is a term that has no universal definition, and the challenge arises when determining the basis of deciding when the use of violence is valid. Some definitions put forward are either too specific or too indistinct where concentration is on some essential "terrorist" facet of the actions, strategies, or forms of non-state groups that engage in terrorism. Kampf (2014) argues that state and non-state groups use violence to achieve political ends. Most definitions of terrorism tend to exclude state acts in violence while condemnation is directed towards acts that lack legitimacy or morality. Therefore, drawing a consensus on the definition of terrorism is a difficult undertaking. However, Schmid (2012) points out that a resolution by the UN Security Council in 2004 define terrorism as criminal acts, including those against civilians, committed with the intention of causing death or serious bodily injury. The definition also includes taking people captives, the rationale to inflame a state of terror in the general, and public. Further, acts to provoke a faction or particular people, intimidating a population or force a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any activity count as terrorism. However, this definition is non-binding and lacks authority in international law.
             Despite this resolution, the UN Member States still do not have an agreed-upon definition of the term. This fact is posing a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. According to Schmid (2012), the Revised Academic Consensus referred to terrorism as a doctrine regarding the presumed effectiveness of a unique form or tactic that generate fear and coercive political violence. This definition further views terrorism as a conspiratorial and calculated move that is demonstrative accompanied by direct actions of violence without legal or just restraints. These acts usually target innocent civilians and ...