Bearing in mind the latent danger from modern terrorism in the XXI century, it is necessary to adopt a generallyacceptable definition of terrorism, which would constitute the basis for the beginning of antiterrorist activities without applying double standards. In addition to the generallyacceptable definition of terrorism on the UN level, identical rules regarding antiterrorist activities must be put in place and the relation towards all types of terrorism must be the same. It must always be borne in mind that terrorism cannot be simply eradicated, but that, rather, international consensus of all under UN guidance and general determination on global level can only put terrorism under control.
International antiterrorist legal acts constitute an attempt at incriminating terrorist activities by the UN and sovereign states on their territories. Therefore, international law determines a relatively coherent legal framework of international action for combating terrorism, a delictum sui generis, the history of which is closely linked to the history of political crime.
However, the author finds that, so far, these documents have failed to yield the expected results in combating terrorist activities. It is apparent that states are becoming an obstacle for the implementation of these documents, thus blunting the edge of efficient antiterrorist action.
Even though in international law terrorism is treated as the violence of natural persons acting individually or in groups, the author thinks that states can also be responsible for terrorist action of individuals – if they actively support them or tolerate their activities. Consequently, states should also bear the main responsibility, which has not been applied in practice by international legal documents dealing with terrorism.
This paper is an attempt to once again bring attention of the international and national general public to the importance of antiterrorist legal documents, together with a warning that is futile to adopt documents that are not applied in practice,Rad je psvećen pravno organizacionim aspektima antiterorističkog delovanja. Prvenstveno problemima defnisanja savremenog terorizma i antiterorizma, te državnim i međunarodno pravnim antiterorističim meraama. Analizirane su međunarodne konvencije koje su defnisale i usvojile UN, njivova su međunarodne konvencije koje su defnisale i usvojile UN, njivova uloga i značaj u antiterorističkim aktivnostima. Ukazano je na značaj pomenutih dokumenata kao i na probleme njihove implementacije. Dakle, autor dokazuje da Konvencije, Rezolucije i ostala pravna dokumenta nisu ostvarila očekivane rezultate. Prema postojećem međunarodno pravnom okviru za kontrolu terorizma autor ovog rada je kritički analizirao problem sa nekoliko aspekata. Prvo, postoje poteškoće u proceni šta je predmet kriminalizacije kroz defnisanje ‘’terorizma’’. Drugi problem postojećeg pravnog okvira je u tome što konvencije favorizuju delovanje nacionalnih tela i ne omogućuju eksteritorijalnu jurisdikciju. Dakle, ako država odluči da ne izruči pojedince ili grupe optužene za terorizam u drugoj državi, država koja ih traži ne može ostvariti cilj, jer državi koja odbije izručenje ne prete konkretne sankcije. I treći problem je utome što opšta priroda konvencija ostavlja državama neopravdano velie slobode u njihovoj interpretaciji i primeni. Autor na kraju smatra da Organizacija UN mora imati mnogo značajniju ulogu u antiterorističkoj borbi i odgovornost za donošenje opšteprihvatljive defnicije terorizma
