Evaluation of national independence movements in the context of the problem of definition of terrorism in international law

The problem of the inability to define terrorism in international law is seen when it is examined in all its dimensions, which is directly related to the political structures of the states. Although countries suffer serious injuries from the concepts of terrorism and terrorism to a disturbing extent, some states are trying to legitimize terrorism in line with their own interests by giving open or implicit support to terrorism. States can do the damage they want by supporting terrorist organizations working against another state, damaging their economies, shaking their authority. For this reason, it suggests that it is conscious not to make a definition of terrorism that will be accepted internationally. National independence movements have proven their legitimacy by many states in the international arena, including states that are parties to the United Nations (UN), and their origin is a justified struggle for independence by nations to prevent their self-determination principle, that is, to prevent the exploitation of states by other states or to get rid of the colony. Ethnic terrorism, on the other hand, is a terrorist structure that can be legitimized on this basis, and that states can even use to harm another state in line with their own political interests. The use of these two concepts, which are very different concepts, interchangeably in line with the political interests of the states, and the fact that terrorism is not defined in the international arena constitutes both the cause and the consequences of the problem. Armed conflicts, on the other hand, are types of conflicts that are based on international conventions and practices, especially the unConventions of 1949 and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which have certain rules around humanitarian law. The international armed conflicts consist of the contract between the states, which are based on the Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Non-international armed conflicts, on the other hand, are not based on an official text. This situation, on the other hand, paves the way for terrorism to legitimize, as whether states call an armed incident in another country like a terrorist incident or an armed conflict creates a point of view entirely according to their own political structures.