In international law, jihadism and self-determination struggles against colonialism are viewed very differently, particularly in the context of the United Nations Charter, various international treaties including those on armed conflict and terrorism, and customary international law. The distinction between unlawful violence and legitimate resistance is a central concern in international legal discourse. Therefore, while both jihadism and anti-colonial self-determination movements may involve armed struggle, their legal and moral standing depends heavily on context, objectives and adherence to international norms.
Regarding jihadism, it refers to a militant interpretation of ‘jihad’, an Islamic concept that traditionally means ‘struggle’ or ‘striving’ on the way to God. While jihad can refer to a personal or spiritual struggle for self-improvement, today jihadism specifically denotes the use of violence or armed struggle to achieve political or religious goals under the banner of Islam. Unlike more common political movements, jihadism is not necessarily concerned with the international system of states, it can entirely reject national borders in favour of establishing a transnational Islamic order or caliphate.
Self-determination is different. It is the principle that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development without external interference, mainly from other states in the international system of states. Self-determination is enshrined in key instruments such as the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Self-determination can take the form of independence as a sovereign state, integration with another state, or autonomy within a state. It has played a crucial role in decolonization, allowing colonized peoples to seek independence, and continues to be invoked by groups seeking greater autonomy or secession. Though this does, at times, raise problems around the principle of territorial integrity of existing states.
Self-Determination
The legal basis for self-determination and anti-colonial struggles is the United Nations Charter (Article 1(2)), which recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination, allowing them to freely determine their political status and independence. UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (1960) and 2625 (1970) reinforce this right, stating that colonial rule must be dismantled and that peoples under colonial domination have the right to struggle for independence. The 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions recognizes armed struggles against colonialism and foreign occupation as legitimate conflicts under international humanitarian law. Examples are the national liberation movements such as the FLN in Algeria, the ANC in South Africa, and the PLO in Palestine, which have historically been recognized as legitimate self-determination movements.
Generally, if a struggle is against colonialism, apartheid, or foreign occupation, it may receive political legitimacy and international recognition. However, such movements must still comply with the laws of war (Geneva Conventions), i.e. targeting civilians would still be considered war crimes or terrorism.
Jihadism though has no recognition under international law, and it has no recognition under self-determination law. Jihadist movements (e.g. Al-Qaeda, ISIS) are not considered national liberation movements because they do not represent a specific colonized or occupied people and often pursue transnational religious goals rather than national independence.
Furthermore, United Nations terrorism conventions make the same point. The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism criminalizes financial support for terrorist movements. Various UN Security Council resolutions (e.g. UNSC Resolutions 1267, 1373, 2178) classify jihadist groups as terrorist organizations rather than freedom fighters.
Jus cogens norms – peremptory norms from which there can be no derogation also come into play. Certain acts committed by jihadist groups, such as genocide, mass killings of civilians, and indiscriminate bombings, violate peremptory norms of international law. Peremptory norms of international law, also known as jus cogens, are fundamental principles recognized by the international community as norms from which no derogation is permitted under any circumstances. These norms are universally binding on all states and override any conflicting international agreements or customary practices. Examples include the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, and aggressive war. Because of their superior status, any treaty or national law that conflicts with a peremptory norm is considered void. They reflect the core values of the international legal order and are essential for maintaining international peace, justice, and human dignity.
Jihadism, which does not involve self-determination, has meant that states around thew world almost universally classify jihadists groups as terrorist organizations, and no state or major international body recognizes jihadist movements as legitimate resistance forces. Even in situations where jihadist groups claim to be fighting against occupation (e.g. ISIS in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan), they lack international legitimacy because of their targeting of civilians, pursuit of religious domination, and rejection of international law.
So, while anti-colonial struggles for self-determination have been legally recognized under international law, jihadism is overwhelmingly rejected and classified as terrorism due to its religious extremism, targeting of civilians, and lack of legitimate claims under UN legal frameworks.
Moral Issues
Jihadism, as an extremist ideology advocating violent struggle in the name of Islam, poses moral problems as well. Moral concerns arise from its methods, impact on civilians, rejection of pluralist interpretations of morality (instead jihadists opt for rigid religious interpretations to be enforced on the people), and the broader consequences of jihadist actions. Jihadism is morally problematic because it glorifies violence, suppresses freedom, justifies cruelty, fosters hatred, exploits vulnerable individuals, and creates more suffering than it alleviates. Even if jihadists claim to resist oppression, their methods are inherently immoral, indiscriminate, and counterproductive to any ethical or just cause.
Indiscriminate Violence Against Civilians (Moral Wrong of Targeting Non-Combatants)
Just War Theory and almost all ethical traditions reject the intentional killing of innocent people. Jihadist groups frequently engage in suicide bombings, mass killings, and indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Examples include the 9/11 attacks in New York city (2001), the Madrid train bombings (2004), and the ISIS Paris attacks (2015) targeted ordinary people with no direct military involvement. Even if jihadists claim to be resisting oppression, targeting civilians is morally indefensible and violates fundamental human dignity.
Suppression of Religious and Intellectual Freedom
A just society allows individuals to choose their beliefs and values without coercion. Jihadism seeks to impose a rigid interpretation of Islam by force, often through execution, persecution, or violent intimidation of dissenters. An example is ISIS executions of Muslims who disagreed with their interpretation of Sharia Law. Another example is the Taliban repression of education for girls and non-Islamic teachings. Forcing beliefs on people violates autonomy and basic freedoms, making jihadism deeply oppressive.
Justification of Extreme Punishment and Brutality
Proportionality and human dignity should guide justice. Many jihadist groups justify beheadings, amputations, floggings, stonings, and sexual slavery based on their interpretation of Islamic law. For example, ISIS enslaved Yazidi women as concubines. Also, there have been public executions in Al-Qaeda-controlled regions. Excessive and brutal punishments violate human dignity, and even traditional Islamic jurisprudence allows for more nuanced interpretations of justice.
Rejection of Moral Pluralism and Coexistence
Ethical societies must allow people of different beliefs and backgrounds to coexist peacefully. Jihadism views non-Muslims (and even Muslims who disagree with them) as enemies, often calling for their subjugation or death. For example, Boko Haram attacks on Christians in Nigeria. Also, the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack on journalists for publishing satirical images. A world where only one rigid belief system is allowed is deeply unethical, as it negates human rights and diversity.
Exploitation and Radicalization of Vulnerable People
It is wrong to manipulate individuals—especially youth and the poor—into committing violence. Jihadist recruiters prey on people in desperate situations, offering false promises of glory, belonging, and paradise in exchange for committing atrocities. Young men and women from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa have been recruited into ISIS under false pretenses. There is also the use of child soldiers by Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. Manipulating people’s despair for political or religious extremism is deeply unethical and dehumanizing.
Backfiring and Cycles of Violence
Violence should be a last resort and should not worsen suffering. Jihadist violence often provokes extreme responses, leading to wars, military interventions, and mass displacement of innocent people. The clear example is the Syrian civil war, where ISIS atrocities led to prolonged conflict and foreign interventions. Rather than helping oppressed people, jihadist violence usually worsens their conditions.
Jihadism is morally problematic because it glorifies violence, suppresses freedom, justifies cruelty, fosters hatred, exploits vulnerable individuals, and creates more suffering than it alleviates. Even if jihadists claim to resist oppression, their methods are inherently immoral, indiscriminate, and counterproductive to any ethical or just cause.
