Are belligerent armed people without insignia or declared nation by definition terrorists?

Question

The question arises because Crimean Peninsula is currently being occupied by thousands of well-armed men in uniforms that has no insignia who threaten to storm military installations and already occupied a few, as well as blocked many routes, etc. These people refuse to name the armed forces or nation. Everybody knows they are Russian forces, but Russia has officially disowned them: in response to the demand to call them off Putin declared that Russia has not deployed them and therefore cannot call them off.

Now, this raises a question: according to international law, are these people terrorists? Since they are not officially a part of any nation's armed forces, and yet they took control of land and population at the gunpoint (and fired a few shots already) how they are different from any other terrorist organization? I am not well-versed in it, but it seems to me that by the letter, disregarding the undeclared allegiance to Russia and considering only the official statements and their actions, they can indeed be declared terrorists, unless I'm missing something.

This leads to the second question: why don't NATO declare them terrorists and deploy its forces in Crimea as an anti-terrorist action? Because of Putin's denials that would not be an action against Russia but an action against terrorists. That would put Putin in a very awkward position: in order to prevent NATO from engaging these forces he would have to aknowledge that they are a part of Russian Army. The reversal of Russia's statement would in turn reduce his standing in the region, which is the main point of his multiple salvos at the neighbors I believe.

Answer 1

The definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was covered on this site before.

I will copy/paste the relevant parts of that answer first:

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

And:

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Note that the political purposes and end goals of terrorism are 100% irrelevant - merely the tactics (targeting non-combatants on purpose).

---

As such, these forces fit at least 2 parts of terrorism definition: (1) Use of violence and (2) To achieve political goals.

However, unless I missed some recent facts, they have ONLY applied violence to military targets - border guards, military bases - and thus did NOT yet fit into the last necessary element: (3) Perpetrated deliberately on non-combatants.

So there's not any easy way for people to qualify these soldiers as unambiguous bona fide terrorists, since not everyone includes acts against armed forces under "terrorism".

At best, they are unlawful combatants.

---

As far as why NATO didn't deploy force against them there are 2 reasons:

1. Legal: because Ukraine is not part of NATO and their government didn't explicitly ask for NATO involvement.

2. Practical: Because Germany's Merkel has no gas; and Obama has no cojones (nor understanding of geopolitics); and likes leading from behind and making kissy kissy with bullies. It's a lot easier to pressure or betray your allies that are being bullied, than standing up to bullies. Just ask Mr Chamberlain.

Answer 2

To the general version of the question as phrased in the title, No. By definition, this could have made the colonial Americans and any other armed group engaging in revolution or dissension "terrorists" while their national identity was being forged, therefore a de facto or assumed or inferred identity could be applied until their identity is formally declared (There was no globally recognized "colonial America" nation while the American colonies fought together for their independence). Even a formal declaration of nation does not make that declaration beyond dispute. The American revolutionaries could be called belligerent because they were engaged in war. Terror is a motive that could move some groups, but at least in the case of the American Revolution, the desire was to increase freedom and put a stop to terror, contradicting that definition. Each sovereignty can choose to classify such groups as they themselves see fit, according to their own perceptions. One can hardly dispute that the rebellious and the rebelled-against would have different designations for the self-same causes.

In answer to the specific question about Russia and sympathetic militants in the Crimea, Yes, that is a plausible classification. Sovereign nations absolutely have the right and responsibility to see through foreign subversion, which is what manifestly what Putin's disavowal of them is. Framing them as terrorists does seem, if backed by the interested party, to force either a confession or an abandonment of purpose on Russia's part.

As to why NATO didn't get involved, it's good practice as taught by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson not to get involved in other people's wars.

Answer 3

Well, under that definition the ANC would be designated as terrorists whereas they are recognised internationally as freedom-fighters.

The term terrorist has become a hold-all term for just about anything a state does not like. As such, it’s a term, in my view, that has lost all value.