Overview

Transatlantic cooperation for countering terrorism has only increased over the decades, arguably exploding into effect after September 11, 2001, and bringing with it countless debates on policies, definitions, civil rights, and strategies. At a fundamental level, differences in definitions are preventing this partnership from being effective. The U.S. government alone maintains more than 20 definitions of “domestic” or “international” terrorism, “terrorist activity,” “acts of terrorism” or “federal crime of terrorism,” which in some instances overlap and in others, radically differ. On the other hand, the European Union has coordinated its counterterrorism laws across Member States and criminalized large numbers of offenses related to terrorism, effectively agreeing to a common description of “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,” yet has no singular definition.  

Though this coordination has been incredibly beneficial for counterterrorism efforts in Europe, the U.S. and EU still have differing approaches towards combating this global threat. The attack on the Twin Towers disrupted international peace on a scale not seen since WWII and instigated the Global War on Terrorism in the U.S. In effect, the U.S. now and arguably will always fear terrorism as an existential threat that needs to be terminated before it reaches the homeland. This has been displayed throughout the years in its role as a global leader in counterterrorism. The EU seems to have a slightly less aggressive approach, instead opting for policies and treaties between Member States to demonstrate their solidarity towards this growing danger across Europe. 

Impact 

But do these different approaches to combating terrorism help reduce the global threat? The differing definitions have contributed to the differing strategies, and in turn, the differing strategies have led to somewhat contradicting views. For instance, the U.S. is a strong advocate of personal data sharing in its efforts to counter terrorism, despite its commitment to citizens' constitutional rights (including the right to privacy). On the other hand, the EU views the practice of personal data sharing as a potential violation of human rights. Regardless, this hesitation has not stopped some participating Member States from supporting the U.S. indirectly, notably in Operation Enduring Freedom, which was a global military campaign led by the U.S. aimed at combating terrorism and dismantling terrorist networks after 9/11. After all, though Member States must adhere to the U.N.’s adaptable characterization of terrorism, each State has considerable latitude in how they interpret the term. 

All of this begs the question: What is truly working to combat global terrorism? Should Member States adopt the U.S. approach of aggressively seeking out terrorists through global operations and universal data transparency even if they all have different definitions of terrorism? Or should they adopt the EU approach of establishing minimum standards under a blanket definition of terrorism for all participants to abide by? One clear example of this dilemma in action is the EU’s refusal to label Hezbollah's political wing as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This is in stark contrast with U.S. policy, which views Hezbollah in its entirety as a serious threat. Counterterrorism strategies, which include restricting the flow of finances, cannot be done in any effective way until Hezbollah’s entire organization is labeled as such. Until then, Hezbollah’s political wing will continue to exploit global financial networks throughout Europe to fund its military wing’s nefarious activities.  

Conclusion

An effective counterterrorism strategy requires an in-depth analysis of what terrorism is, as leaving the definition implicit obscures the true nature of the threat. Being able to categorically define terrorism in all its facets will undeniably help in creating a strategy to counter it. Scholars, along with those involved in the U.S.-EU cooperation, need to continue working together to come up with a consensual description. A successful strategy also requires understanding which actors can be considered terrorists. Prioritizing government resources to penetrate as many vectors as possible will drastically improve the ability and likelihood of identifying potential terrorists and disrupting their means of communication. Lastly, a productive counterterrorism strategy requires sanctioning from the governing bodies implementing it, both legally, strategically, and ethically. Several factors can influence this; however, legal considerations tend to create the largest barrier, and laws must adjust to the constantly changing terror threat environment. Ultimately, U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation requires deliberate discussion on the multifaceted definitions of terrorism, otherwise there will continue to be miscommunication, ineffective strategies, and wasted resources.