Abstract
Terrorism is a concept that defies a simple and straightforward legal definition. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that there is no Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism with a universally accepted definition of what constitutes “terrorism.” Consequently, States have devised their own definitions of what constitutes terrorism that are typically found in their criminal law. This raises the fundamental question of whether there is a convergence or divergence in jurisprudential trends on what constitutes terrorism among States? Presumably, a convergence in jurisprudential trends is more likely to contribute to combatting the threat of terrorism at the international and national levels. Accordingly, this article comparatively analyzes the definition of terrorism in three common law jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. It finds that although there are a number of similarities in the definition of terrorism in these three States, they have significantly different definitions of what constitutes terrorism. The UK definition, ostensibly, has the broadest definition of terrorism of the three States. The US has, undoubtedly, the most unique, with separate definitions for “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism.” Additionally, Canada has the most international definition of terrorism, drawing on 13 functional terrorism Conventions to define offenses such as hijacking, hostage taking, and bombing, etc. The second part of the article comparatively analyzes seven of the leading Supreme Court cases on terrorism in these three States. From the ratio or rationes decidendi in each of these cases, it draws out the twelve legal principles that underlie these judgements and finds that they are similar and overall consistent. The conclusion reached is that there is, at least in these three common law jurisdictions, an apparent convergence in jurisprudential trends in the law of terrorism. This augurs well for the development and emergence of a common definition of what constitutes terrorism at the international and transnational levels, as well as more rigorous and effective counter-terrorism laws and policies within and across States.
Highlights
Terrorism is a concept that defies a simple and straightforward legal definition
It is important to mention that the United States keeps its own list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), with some 61 designated FTOs on its list; that is mandated under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
The cases for the jurisprudential analysis were selected on the basis that they dealt with some aspect of terrorism that was relevant to the definition of terrorism in the Criminal Codes and statutes in these jurisdictions
Summary
This section of the article will analyze some of the recent leading jurisprudence on terrorism in the UK, the US, and Canada It will do so by examining how the SCs in each of these jurisdictions have applied and interpreted the relevant statutes that define terrorism to discern how these final courts of appeal have addressed the constitutional issues involved in these leading terrorism cases. This section of the dissertation will examine how the respective SCs have dealt with some of the leading terrorism cases within each of their jurisdictions. The cases for the jurisprudential analysis were selected on the basis that they dealt with some aspect of terrorism that was relevant to the definition of terrorism in the Criminal Codes and statutes in these jurisdictions. In an ever globalized environment, with the attendant emergence of the threat of international terrorism, the necessity for consistent and collaborative legal effort becomes ever more evident
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have