Norma relacionada
Philippines
Practice Relating to Rule 2. Violence Aimed at Spreading Terror among the Civilian Population
In its judgment in the Human Security Act case in 2007, the Philippine Supreme Court stated:
… aside from the 12 anti-terrorism conventions, are the Geneva Conventions and Protocols … The Geneva Conventions and Protocols are the core treaties of international humanitarian law (IHL). Though IHL applies to situations of armed conflict or during wartime, the idea that it “can provide guidance to the legal approach to terrorism in peacetime” was first broached by the long-time editor of the International Review of the Red Cross Hans-Peter Gasser as early as 1985 in a paper entitled “Prohibition of terrorist acts in international humanitarian law.”
The [Fourth] Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, Article 33 provides, among others, that “Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” … The 1977 Additional Protocol II Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 4, paragraph 2(d) prohibits “acts of terrorism.” [emphasis added by Court]
The authoritative international legal commentary on the latter says that such “prohibition of acts of terrorism with no further detail, covers not only acts directed against people, but also acts directed against installations which would cause victims as a side-effect.”
But it is the 1977 Additional Protocol I Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Article 51, paragraph 2 and the identical Article 13, paragraph 2 of Protocol II which may be said to elaborate on the term “terrorism” and thus provide a core legal framework for a definition of terrorism. The said identical provisions for both international and non-international armed conflicts read as follows:
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. [emphasis added by Court]
The authoritative international legal commentary on the second sentence is instructive:
… the Conference wished to indicate that the prohibition covers acts intended to spread terror; there is no doubt that acts of violence related to a state of war almost always give rise to some degree of terror among the population and sometimes also among the armed forces. It also happens that attacks on armed forces are purposely conducted brutally in order to intimidate the enemy soldiers and persuade them to surrender. This is not the sort of terror envisaged here. This provision is intended to prohibit acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population without offering substantial military advantage. It is interesting to note that threats of such acts are also prohibited. This calls to mind some of the proclamations made in the past threatening the annihilation of civilian populations. [emphasis added by Court]
Not only has the Philippines ratified the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 in 1952, signed Protocol I in 1977 and acceded to Protocol II in 1986, the Supreme had also earlier ruled in the 1949 case of Kuroda vs. Jalandoni (83 Phil. 171) that “the rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law… Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them.” …
In fact, the particular rule that “Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited” is established as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Philippines, Supreme Court, Human Security Act case, Judgment, 16 July 2007.
[emphasis added by Court]