Are both of these paragraphs good? If not, which one reads better? Why?

[tamaraw12345]

(Note: The two paragraphs talk about the same subject)

(1) An understandable intuitive designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization lacks support from any universal legal definition of "terrorist." One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Thus, even an international consensus on legal meaning in general terms is not readily translated to the fine print of a treaty. Terrorist activity often arises from an ideology which expresses moral and value judgments. Therein lies the problem: condemnation of the terrorist act is necessarily entangled with condemnation of those who hold to the values which gave rise to it.

(2) Designating ISIS as a terrorist organization, while intuitively acceptable, is not strongly backed by any universally accepted legal definition of terrorism. While there is an emerging consensus on the definition of terrorism, to date, no treaty exhaustively lists down all its elements. One reason for the lack of any legally binding definition for the term is that an individual considered by one government as a terrorist might be a freedom fighter to another. Indeed, terrorism is an ideologically charged concept, often connoting moral and value judgments.

 

[Dena11]

The second is better, imho. It's much clearer than the first.

One minor suggestion. Instead of: "While there is an emerging consensus on the definition of terrorism, to date, no treaty exhaustively lists down all its elements."
I suggest: "While there is an emerging consensus on the definition of terrorism[STRIKE], to date[/STRIKE], no treaty exhaustively lists [STRIKE]down [/STRIKE]all of its elements.

Hope this helps,

Dena