State action against terrorism in relation to the Neutrality Clause found in the Constitution of Malta

Abstract

The concept of terrorism has many faces, and in modern times certain terrorist groups can rightfully be regarded as enemies of the State. The concept of terrorism is studied in relation to the neutrality clause of the Maltese Constitution, and questions are asked when it comes to action by the State against terrorists, terrorist organizations and even State sponsored terrorism. There is no universal definition of ‘terrorism’, and thus sometimes people fighting for a cause, like freedom fighters also end up being regarded as terrorists and it is noted that this situation needs amending. Terrorist actions taken by the State take two forms: State sponsorship of terrorism, and State terror. State sponsorship of terrorism relates to supporting other terrorist groups and organizations, on the other hand State terror relates to campaigns undertaken by particular States in order to terrorize their own people. While criminal action against individuals can be taken against representatives of other States who commit such actions, there are also other actions which can be permitted, provided that they do qualify under the necessary qualifications. The Maltese neutrality clause has a number of exceptions which allow the presence of foreign forces in Malta, and these include: (a) self-defence over an area that Malta has sovereignty over, (b) measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations, or (c) threats that threaten the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of Malta. The laws and policies of other European States are also analysed in order to be compared to actions taken by the State of Malta, and while the State of Malta is militarily neutral, it has to be remembered that the neutrality clause does not force the Government of Malta to engage in political neutrality.