Abstract
This paper has three aims. The first is to introduce the semantic and political implications of defining terrorism within the United Nations: what would a definition of terrorism in such an international organization mean? Is it even acceptable? What would such an agreement imply? The second aim is to determine the concrete reasons of the failure, that is to say, the very contradictions it highlighted. The last aim of this paper is to analyse how the UN can act (and actually acts) against terrorism after such a failure: in the new global trend of securitization implied by the so-called war for terror, what would be the role of the UN, and which value would have the definition of terrorism in such a context?
