A Comparative Analysis of the Prosecutorial Strategies Employed by the United States of America and Germany in the Prosecution of IS-Affiliated Women on Terrorism-Related Charges

Abstract

This article aims to elucidate the similarities and differences between the prosecutorial strategies employed by the United States of America and Germany in the prosecution of IS-affiliated women on terrorism-related charges. By using comparative and doctrinal legal research methods, this article reviews and dissects the criminal proceedings against seven American and seven German IS-affiliated women prosecuted on terrorism-related charges. The article first highlights the fluctuating role of IS-affiliated women, thereby exhibiting the broad spectrum of female engagement in ISIS, ranging from passive participants to active facilitators of violence. Following this, the article presents the international obligations stemming from terrorism-centred UNSC Resolutions and their subsequent transposition into domestic law, forming §2339A and §2339B of the United States Code and §129a and §129b of the German Criminal Code. Finally, the article compares the prosecutorial strategies employed by the two States on the following four grounds: (1) types of evidence, (2) charges, (3) mitigating and aggravating factors, and (4) sentencing. Ultimately, a juxtaposition of the prosecutorial strategies employed by the United States of America and Germany in the prosecution of IS-affiliated women on terrorism-related charges identifies contrasting, albeit at times similar, approaches to prosecution primarily as a result of the time at which initiation of criminal proceedings ensues.