Terrorism is a concept of political, social and legal importance, but its definition remains heavy with ambiguity. Despite decades of university discourse, a universally accepted definition remains elusive. This lack of consensus has enabled states and institutions to interpret and deploy the term in a way that aligns with their political programs, often to the detriment of proportionality and justice. The case of 2024 by Luigi Mangione illustrates this question. Mangione, motivated by grievances against systemic inequalities in the American health system, fatally turned the CEO of Unitedhealthcare, Brian Thompson. Prosecutors have developed its terrorism actions under New York expanded anti -terrorist laws, raising accusations of the first degree murder with improvements in terrorism. Critics argue that Mangione’s actions, although violent, result from personal grievances rather than systemic or ideological motivations aimed at instilling fear or forcing society.
The challenges of the definition of terrorism are for a long time and politically loaded. The 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism introduced key elements at the center today: violence or its threat, its intimidation and its political or ideological objectives. Despite this base, the debates persist, because terrorism remains a subjective label shaped by social and political agendas. Nevertheless, the common characteristics in the definitions include violence, the targeting of civilians, the creation of fear, the pursuit of ideological objectives and deliberate intention. Although these elements provide a conceptual framework, they remain open to interpretation.
As the case of mangione shows, the application of these criteria depends strongly on the context and the intention attributed to the aggressor. The political and ideological dimensions of the alleged actions of Mangione – have been rooted in the grievances against the health system – to experience a debate on the question of whether its crime constitutes terrorism or simply targeted violence motivated by personal reasons.
Social-constructionist theories also complicate the debate defining by supervising terrorism as a political label, subject to the perspectives and interests of those who define it. Its meaning is fluid, shaped by which applies the term and for what purpose. This perspective is particularly relevant to the Mangione case, where the label of terrorism serves not only as a legal designation but also as a rhetorical tool to delegitimize its grievances. By supervising Mangione’s actions as a terrorism, prosecutors strengthen a story that favors the interests of states and businesses on the motivations of the individual, raising concerns about the politicization of justice.
Investigators cited a recovered manifesto from Mangione, which condemned the greed of businesses and systemic inequalities in the American health system. Prosecutors argued that Mangione’s actions were intended to intimidate business leaders and influence public policies, leading to accusations of first degree and terrorism murder as part of the New York anti -terrorist statutes. Critics of the accusation argue that the application of the label of terrorism in this case is an excessive excess, emphasizing the absence of a broader intention to encourage fear of mass, a key criterion in many definitions of terrorism. Instead, Mangione’s actions seem to be anchored in the personal grievance and the frustration of health care inequalities rather than by a calculated attempt to force the general public or the government.
The case of Mangione reflects the broader politicization of the terrorism label, which is often deployed to delegitimize specific actors or amplify the perceived threat of certain actions. It must be recognized that terrorism is not a neutral or universally defined term, but a socially constructed concept shaped by political and cultural contexts. This subjectivity is evident in the historical labeling of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) as terrorists by the apartheid regime and its Western allies. Mandela sabotage acts against state infrastructure, aimed at dismantling an oppressive system, have been formulated as terrorism despite their wider liberalic objectives.
Today, Mandela is revered as a global icon of resistance, stressing how the terrorism label can change with the evolution of political landscapes. A similar scheme is evident in the United States, where violent acts of right-wing extremists, such as the insurrection of the Capitol on January 6, are often described as “domestic extremism” or “insurrection” rather than terrorism . This linguistic distinction minimizes the ideological nature of such violence, reflecting systemic biases which prioritize certain stories on others.
Luigi Mangione’s actions have been explicitly conceived as terrorism because of their perceived ideological context and their intention to criticize business and government systems. Prosecutors relied on anti -terrorist laws to raise their accusations, arguing that his violence was politically motivated, targeting the health care industry to inspire systemic change. This framing reflects the expansive interpretation of laws on terrorism, which increasingly encompass targeted acts of violence if they are perceived as ideological. However, this expansive interpretation is likely to confuse personal grievances with a broader terrorist intention, diluting the analytical and legal utility of the term. Mangione’s note, although critical of the health system, did not have the ideological depth or the societal impact traditionally associated with terrorism.
The invocation of anti -terrorist laws in the case of Mangione had profound legal consequences, increasing the accusations of murder in the first degree with an improvement in terrorism. Critics argue that this decision reflects a punistent excess, prioritizing the severe sentence of proportional justice. Such excessive use of laws against terrorism can divert the resources of the fight against authentic threats, undergoing both justice and public security. In the case of Mangione, the prosecutor as a terrorist undermines his right to a fair trial and risks rejecting valid criticism of systemic health care.
Read more in -depth on international relations
