Conclusions: Germany and UN Antiterrorism Efforts in the 1970s and Beyond

  • Bernhard Blumenau


The adoption of GA Resolution 34/146 marked an important accomplishment after almost a decade of antiterrorism negotiations at the United Nations (UN). However, it was not just a significant event for the UN but also a special moment for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). By passing the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, Germany saw the result of an initiative it had introduced three years before. Given the lengthiness of the multilateral negotiations, this was still a remarkably short period for a subject as controversial as antiterrorism. Yet, the project was not guaranteed success from the very beginning. On several occasions, the initiative was on the brink of being aborted. This was because at times the differences seemed too large to overcome, while at other times, there simply did not seem to be enough support for the project, especially among Germany’s allies. That the convention was nevertheless adopted, despite the obstacles, is due to a combination of different factors.


Foreign Policy United Nations Foreign Minister International Civil Aviation Organisation International Terrorism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For more information on the conventions, see, for instance, C. S. Thomas and M. J. Kirby, ‘The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 22, no. 1 (1973), 163–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    On the current negotiations, see, for instance, Mahmoud Hmoud, ‘Negotiating the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism: Major Bones of Contention’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 4, no. 5 (2006), 1031–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben Saul, ‘Attempts to Define Terrorism in International Law’, Netherlands International Law Review 52, no. 01 (2005), 57–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Peter Romaniuk, Multilateral Counter-Terrorism. The Global Politics of Cooperation and Contestation (Oxon: Routledge, 2010), 55–108.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    On general German foreign policy, see, for instance, Helga Haftendorn, Coming of Age. German Foreign Policy since 1945 (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006)Google Scholar
  6. Gregor Schollgen, Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: Beck, 1999).Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    See, for instance, Malvina Halberstam, ‘Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety’, The American Journal of International Law 82, no. 2 (1988), 269–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glen Plant, ‘The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 39, no. 1 (1990), 27–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helmut Tuerk, ‘Combating Terrorism at Sea: The Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation’, Miami International & Comparative Law Review 15, no. 3 (2008), 337–68.Google Scholar
  10. 23.
    David C. Rapoport, ‘The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism’, in Attacking Terrorism. Elements of A Grand Strategy, (ed.) Audrey Kurth Cronin and James M. Ludes (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 46–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bernhard Blumenau 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Blumenau
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of International and Development StudiesGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations