Features
What Is Appropriate in a Developing Country Context? – Part II
The Dilemma of a Definition: Terrorism Without Terror?
by Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel
In Part 1 of this article, the writer argued that, as a fundamental principle, for an act to come within the definition of terrorism, it must involve ‘terror’ or a ‘state of intense or overwhelming fear’ or be committed to achieve an objective of an individual or organisation that uses ‘terror’ or a ‘state of intense or overwhelming fear’ to realise its aims.
Sri Lanka: Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023
Examining the Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023, a five-member Bench of our Supreme Court acknowledged that a broad and open definition of terrorism confers a greater power on the Police than a narrow one. To bring the law more in line with international law, acts that constitute offences under the international conventions on terrorism to which Sri Lanka is a party must be added as wrongful acts under the proposed law.
The Court referred to the following definition of terrorism in the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, which was considered by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, and stated that, in its view, it offers a useful yardstick to measure the domestic definition.
“Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or (c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”
With respect, it should be noted that, as the title of the document clearly indicates, the definition is from a draft specifically concerning the definition of international terrorism and that even the United Nations was unable to reach an agreement on it. Further, Draft Article 3 of the same makes it clear that the definition should not be applied to domestic terrorism: “The present Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the alleged offender and the victims are nationals of that State, the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State and no other State has a basis under article 7, paragraph 1 or 2, of the present Convention to exercise jurisdiction, except that the provisions of articles 9 and 13 to 17 of the present Convention shall, as appropriate, apply in those cases.” (UN document A/59/894).
It is worth noting that our own Dr. Rohan Perera, President’s Counsel and senior diplomat, chaired the UN Ad-hoc Committee on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, established by UNGA Resolution 51/210, which negotiated the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. One hopes that the Arsakularatne Committee deliberating on a new law will consult Dr. Perera.
The Supreme Court referred to definitions of terrorism found in the laws of Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. The Australian definition exempts advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action that is not intended to cause the wrongful acts that would constitute terrorism. In Canada, acts committed in the exercise of the freedoms of belief, expression and association are exempted. The United Kingdom definition does not have such an exemption or “carve out.”
The Court referred to the exemption in New Zealand with approval under which “the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person” committed the wrongful acts that would otherwise constitute terrorism.
The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was too broad and infringed Article 12(1) of the Constitution, and recommended that an exemption similar to that used in New Zealand be inserted to qualify the definition.
While appreciating the Court’s finding that the definition in the Anti-Terrorism Bill was too broad, it is respectfully submitted that the political, administrative and law enforcement cultures of the country concerned are factors that must be considered. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are far ahead of developing countries such as Sri Lanka in that regard. In our countries, where the chances of misuse are greater, definitions should be narrower, with exemptions broader and more precise.
Tanzanian law
According to news reports, the Arsekularatne Committee will examine whether the definition of terrorism in Tanzania’s Prevention of Terrorism Act could be adopted by Sri Lanka.
The main provision in the Tanzanian Act that creates the offence of terrorism is section 4(2) which reads: A person commits terrorist act if, with terrorist intention, does an act or omission which- (a) may seriously damage a country or an international organisation; or (b) is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to- (i) seriously intimidate a population; (ii) unduly compel a Government or perform or abstain from performing any act; (iii) seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of country or an international organization; or (iv) otherwise influence such Government, or international organisation; or (c) involves or causes, as the case may be- (i) attacks upon a person’s life which may cause death; (ii) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; (iii) kidnapping of a person. Thus, the person who commits the acts set out must do so with a “terrorist intention,”
The definition of terrorism in section 3 leads to uncertainty: ”terrorist act” means an act or omission referred to under section 4 of the Act and the expression ”terrorist” shall be construed accordingly. Thus, to ascertain what a “terrorist intention” is, one refers to section 3 and is then directed back to section 4, with the result that every act or omission set out in section 4 is considered a terrorist act.
Section 4(3) defines additional acts that constitute terrorism. Acts or threats, ranging from those involving serious bodily harm and the use of firearms and explosives to disrupting essential emergency services, will be considered terrorism if they are intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public, or to compel the Government or an international organisation to act or refrain from acting. Such acts must also be made to support or promote acts that qualify as terrorism under the Act. There are thus three essential elements: (i) the acts or threats mentioned; (ii) their purpose to intimidate people, the government, or an international organisation; and (iii) their aim to support or advance acts that constitute terrorism, meaning acts described in section 4(2). As mentioned earlier, this is problematic because one has to go to section 3 to ascertain what “terrorism” is and is redirected to section 4!
And so, one goes around and around.
Tanzanian lawyer Deo J. Nangela in his paper titled “Institutional Democratic Practice, Human Rights, and the Police Force’s Accountability in Tanzania” published in the Law School of Tanzania Journal (Vol 2, No. 1, 2017) states: “In Tanzania, the Prevention of Terrorism Act has not given a straightforward definition of the subject either. Section 3 of the Act does not define the concept but defines which acts constitute it by making reference to Section 4 which enlists such acts or omissions labelled as constituting ‘terrorist acts’ when committed and provides further that the expression “terrorist”, shall be construed accordingly. Even so, Section 4, to which reference is made to by Section 3, does not provide a helpful explanation of what constitutes terrorism.”
HRCSL on laws on terrorism
The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, in a letter to the Minister of Justice last month, called for the abolition of the PTA and recommended that the offence of “terrorism” be dealt with under general law. Any new offence with respect to “terrorism” should contain a specific and narrow definition of terrorism, such as the following: “Any person who by the use of force or violence unlawfully targets the civilian population or a segment of the civilian population with the intent to spread fear among such population or segment thereof in furtherance of a political, ideological, or religious cause commits the offence of terrorism”. The letter was copied to Mr. Arsekularatne.
Five features of the PTA were described as particularly egregious: vague and open-ended offences, long term detention —- up to twelve months — without trial, dispensing with the requirement to produce a suspect before a Magistrate within a stipulated period of time in total contravention of Article 13(2) of the Constitution, denial of bail to the accused once an indictment is served in the High Court, and the admissibility of confession to police officers as evidence, thereby encouraging the abuse of suspects in custody.
The letter to the Minister was in relation to the much-publicised arrest and detention of one Mohamed Rusdi for displaying two anti-Israeli stickers, which the Commission found to have violated several of his fundamental rights.
The Commission viewed Rusdi’s case as an example of how law enforcement authorities may venture even beyond the PTA, revealing an institutional demand for enhancing police powers under a new special counterterrorism law. While preventive detention and racial profiling in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of an offence are not permitted under the PTA, a new special counterterrorism law could very well legitimise such measures, the Commission stated. Did the Commission have any indication that law enforcement authorities were proposing such measures?
The Commission cautioned the Ministry of Justice and all those involved in the current process to be conscious of the dangers inherent in any suggestion to enhance the powers of law enforcement authorities. Such enhancement may pertain to new powers being granted to law enforcement authorities to “detect”, “monitor” and potentially “rehabilitate” persons who are not reasonably suspected of any offence, but based on racial profiling, estimated to be “radicalised” or prone to “religious extremism” and capable of offences in the future.
In the above context, the writer suggests that for an act to fall within the crime of terrorism, it must involve “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear,” or be carried out with the aim of achieving a goal of an individual or organisation that employs “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to attain its objectives. A broader definition would result in misuse, as happened under the PTA for more than forty-five years.
Features
Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines
Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.
Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.
Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.
Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.
Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.
The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.
The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:
=Joint planning across operational divisions
=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making
=Continuous cross-functional consultation
=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates
Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.
Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.
By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst
Features
Why Pi Day?
International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow
The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.
Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.
It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.
Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.
Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.
π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)
The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.
π = 9801/(1103 √8)
For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.
It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.
This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.
Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.
Happy Pi Day!
The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.
by R N A de Silva
Features
Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink
The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.
As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.
It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.
Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.
Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.
Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.
The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.
While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.
On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.
Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.
Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.
Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.
Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.
Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.
However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.
-
News7 days agoPeradeniya Uni issues alert over leopards in its premises
-
News5 days agoRepatriation of Iranian naval personnel Sri Lanka’s call: Washington
-
News7 days agoWife raises alarm over Sallay’s detention under PTA
-
Features5 days agoWinds of Change:Geopolitics at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia
-
News4 days agoProf. Dunusinghe warns Lanka at serious risk due to ME war
-
Sports3 days agoRoyal start favourites in historic Battle of the Blues
-
Latest News7 days agoHeat Index at ‘Caution Level’ in the Sabaragamuwa province and, Colombo, Gampaha, Kurunegala, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya, Hambanthota and Monaragala districts
-
Features7 days agoThe final voyage of the Iranian warship sunk by the US

