A comparison between the legal definition of terrorism and the social construction of terrorism in political and media discourse.

Language plays an important role in framing government policy and informing legislation, and an
extremely relevant instance of this involves definitions of terrorism, which can impact on how
society defines and punishes criminal activity. The main aim of my PhD is to test the extent to which
the legal definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) frames British
political and media discourse. This follows Greene's (2017) assertion that the role the law plays in
framing political debates has been overstated. A subsidiary aim is to test the extent to which
'terrorism' and 'extremism' have been conflated, as claimed by Onursal and Kirkpatrick (2021), and
what this might mean in relation to the definition of terrorism, the rule of law, and respect for
human rights.
Problem statement and research questions
It is hypothesised that while political and media discourse is sometimes in accordance with the legal
definition of terrorism, much is not, and that the label 'extremism' is frequently conflated with
'terrorism'. Analysis supporting these hypotheses may reveal much about the political interests at
play and the potential for the definition of terrorism to be further widened. My analysis will
illuminate how certain actions are reported in the media and the consequent public perceptions of
terrorism and extremism. It could also raise serious concerns surrounding the rule of law and human
rights. For example, if extremism' is conflated with 'terrorism', the use of counterterrorism
measures in response to extremism could be normalised, even though extremist views do not
necessarily result in violent action.