This House believes that governments should pay compensation for terrorist atrocities committed by t

Terrorism, according to Wikipedia, is, broadly speaking, “those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of civilians or non-combatants”. There is some debate as to whether or not we can distinguish between terrorism and freedom fighters but for the purposes of this debate when we refer to terrorists we refer to groups such as al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Irish Republican Army, Taliban and other such organisations that are generally recognised as terrorist. Compensation refers to a monetary payment given to the individual who are wither direct victims of a terrorist attacks or else to family members who suffer as a result of the death of a loved one. It would be wise as a proposition to begin the debate by stipulating that this would only be possible where it is clear who the perpetrators were and what their nationality was.

There are two possible scenarios. Either the terrorists have committed the atrocities in their own nation in which case there is less debate as we are far more inclined to believe that governments have certain duties towards their own citizens, or terrorists commit atrocities in countries other than their own, in which case there is a greater burden on the proposition to show why the state ought to be held responsible.

So the questions to be answered in this debate are: Are we justified in holding a state responsible for terrorist acts committed by its citizens? What will the consequences of this policy be?

The UN suggests: The more viable alternative [to the motion under debate] is to create an international fund for victims of terrorism. Terrorism is a global phenomenon and we need a global solution to this menace so that the damage is mitigated to a certain extent. This view of setting up an international fund was even backed by the UN since the government can’t pay every time. This fund was originally suggested to be providing financial support rather than compensation but could be easily adapted will serve better is a more viable alternative instead of calling on the government to pay up for acts of terror.[1]

This is one possible line that an opposition can take. It is also possible for the opposition to argue that the government of the victims should pay the compensation or that there should be no compensation at all. I will run the opposition line that the victim government should be paying compensation.