Hermès Marangos examines the importance of clear language when discussing political violence, in Insurance Day

For international lawyers working across jurisdictions, there is a paradox which exists during times of increased political violence within, or between, countries.

Although public and private international laws converge to deal with issues of political violence, during actual conflicts one may not see many cases move quickly through international courts to deal with the actions of states versus the actions of other states or by terrorist organisations.

Within this inescapable vacuum of rapidly concluded cases in the public international law arena (proper conclusive judicial analysis normally comes many months or years down the line), the inevitable propaganda surrounding political violence drifts into the discourse.

This, in turn, leads to a very loose use of terminology relating to international laws, an unwelcome situation which only serves the interests of the hierarchy of political factions, or those looking for dramatic headlines.

Meanwhile, back in the less polemical, cold reality of our financial services industry, matters do still have to be dealt with, meaning that specific claims must be presented promptly to the appropriate markets, whether the war risks market, the terrorism market or for riot losses to the relevant all-risks market, in a precise manner, and with an accompanying proof of loss. Put simply, our industry historically had to, and continues to, deal with issues of war, whether interstate or civil, terrorism and all the other variations of political violence.

Getting this exactly right is the hallmark of our legal system, which is used as a reference by the insurance market worldwide, a source of pride for our lawyers and judiciary, as well as the industry, since this is a market that has been the source of law historically.

On the issue of riots (an important part of the “mosaic” of political violence to which these specialists laws apply), in the aftermath of this summer’s violent and highly disruptive riots, it is important that the insurance industry share its insight as to what riots and civil commotion are actually about, lest anyone seeking to exploit the disquiet ( without alluding to either Donald Trump or Elon Musk here) declares, for example, that England is a command state or is experiencing, or about to experience, a genuine civil war in 2024.

Amongst the many technical requirements, civil war requires an armed conflict between organised groups within the same country. One nil for the rule of law versus influencers’ statements on social platforms.

Likewise, there are technical requirements for acts of terrorism relating to the ideological nature of attacks and influencing a government, putting the public in fear, as well as issues of qualitative differences to other political violence.
In their turn, riots require a common purpose and individuals to be acting in a group. This is why in reality, and despite the loose “pub talk”, most of those charged because of their participation in this summer’s disturbances were not actually charged under the Riot Act.

Those arrested were mainly charged for violence, arson, assault, and battery offences. It was more appropriate and easier to charge suspects with commonly used offences under the criminal law.

In the BBC’s recent analysis of 652 charges against 470 people following the disturbances, there were 310 counts of violent disorder and 51 counts of harassment. In fact, just in the last weeks, Kieran Usher became the first adult to be jailed after being convicted of an offence of riot.

As there are legal and financial repercussions for market participants, which depend on what the political violence causing the losses is, the differences in the terms are crucial. This made them very important to the development of the maritime and subsequently insurance industries. It also led to many of the terms being introduced simultaneously worldwide, which made sense when different nations trade. This Lex Mercatoria, coming from the customs and procedures developed within merchant communities, arms lawyers with the law that identifies the delimiting line between violent demonstrations and terrorism, or insurrection and riots. This is at the heart of the legitimacy of the market, as it allows all participants to obtain the right products from the market with a precise, technical, and balanced approach to the definitions and meanings of risks so that insurance and reinsurance practice becomes interchangeable with the practice of the law.

Furthermore, we in the London Market are privileged to be guided by an insurance practice and law that is regarded as the default law and practice by numerous jurisdictions.

This approach allows the London Market, its laws, and its highest courts to be a point of reference for identifying the difference between distinct political violence terms. For example, why a demonstration by indigenous people or Chinese students getting out of hand falls within the ambit of riots as opposed to terrorism, and conversely, why a horrific terrorist attack cannot be labelled as mere vandalism as that would be equally imprecise, while also offensive. It also disciplines the market in difficult scenarios to be reminded that riot covers do not really allow them to differentiate per se between riots they like or do not like, or between economic riots and political riots.

It is key to reiterate here that the legal definition of what constitutes rioting for insurance purposes is something which requires sober and steady analysis when a claim is being made following disturbances on city streets.
As a country that has an industry and a judicial system that is used as a reference in such matters, it is even more incumbent upon us to use our language carefully.

This is particularly important when incidents of political violence are likely to increase because of tensions worldwide caused by deteriorating conditions for many communities, breakdown of societies and borders in key hot spots around the world, more political activism, and a higher incidence of social violence, with increasing marginalisation of social groups.

Terms like riot, as with terms like war, civil war, insurrection, and terrorism should not be wilfully thrown around in a fast and loose way, particularly by those in the public eye. Too many brilliant jurists and judges (and yes, excellent brokers and underwriters) have applied their minds to these issues, for them and the terms and interpretations to be ridiculed in such a manner.

We also owe it to the likes of Lord Mustill, and the international legal and market teams that have been working on the nuances of War and PVT products, to be careful of loose talk.