The aim of this article is to explore British courts’ jurisprudence relating to the actions of those who have committed acts abroad which, in some circumstances, might be considered terrorism. It does this by identifying three different types of attacks: against civilians, against UN-mandated forces and against another State’s military forces. What emerges from this analysis is that British courts readily classified the first two forms of attack as terrorism while remaining flexible in respect of the third. The article draws on domestic law concerning terrorism and also that which relates to immigration and asylum claims. From this it is apparent the courts have used a complex patchwork of international and domestic law to distinguish between terrorism and ‘legitimate armed attacks’. This is significant because the discussion of the issues by the courts might be of assistance in clarifying and developing the distinction in international law.

中文翻译：

---

恐怖分子还是武装反对派团体战斗机？英国法院的经验及其对国际公法的启示

本文的目的是探讨与在国外实施过某些行为的英国法院有关的判例，在某些情况下，这些行为可能被视为恐怖主义。为此，它确定了三种不同类型的攻击：针对平民，针对联合国授权的部队以及针对另一国军事部队的攻击。从这种分析得出的结果是，英国法院很容易将前两种攻击形式归类为恐怖主义，而对第三种攻击则保持灵活。该条借鉴了关于恐怖主义以及与移民和庇护申请有关的国内法。由此看来，法院显然使用了复杂的国际法和国内法来区分恐怖主义和“合法武装袭击”。