The protection of human rights is of great importance to international states, but after the terrorist attacks of 2001, this value faced serious challenges. The events of September 11 not only changed international security policies but also led to the tightening of anti-terrorism laws in many countries, which led to the restriction of fundamental human rights. Freedom of expression, personal privacy, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of movement are the areas that have been most affected. This study aims to examine the relationship between the threat of terrorism and the restriction of human rights and to assess the extent to which states interfere with the rights of individuals in the name of security. The study was conducted through a qualitative method; in addition to international legal documents, research materials, and official reports, 15-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 professors from private universities and political science faculties in Nangarhar province. The findings show that the effects of strict security policies practically result in a decrease in the level of human rights. The conclusion is that maintaining a balance between security and rights is vital. The study recommends that governments establish transparent laws, independent oversight mechanisms, and strictly implement international human rights standards.

The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, imposed by British colonial authorities in India, was a draconian law that branded entire communities as “hereditary criminals,” enforcing systematic surveillance, forced settlement, and social ostracization. This paper provides a comprehensive examination of the Act’s origins, implementation, and enduring legacy. It begins by contextualizing the Act within India’s caste system, tracing how ancient religious codifications – from the Rigveda to the Manusmriti – established and justified a rigid hierarchy that colonial policies later exploited. We analyze the language and intent of the Act, illustrating how the British administration wielded it as an instrument to control nomadic and marginalized groups by presuming criminality by birth. The short-term impacts on Dalits (formerly “Untouchables”), Adivasis (indigenous tribes), and other minorities were severe: communities faced loss of land, curtailed freedoms, and state-sanctioned stigma, with an estimated thirteen million people across 127 communities directly affected by Independence. The Act’s long-term repercussions persisted well beyond its repeal in 1949, as independent India’s Habitual Offenders Act (1952) continued to profile and police these denotified tribes, entrenching cycles of poverty and prejudice. Crucially, this paper situates the Criminal Tribes Act in a comparative global context. Parallels are drawn to other systems of institutionalized oppression: the Jim Crow laws in the United States, which enforced a codified racial apartheid and denied African Americans basic rights; the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, whereby ~120,000 people (two-thirds U.S. citizens) were incarcerated without cause; and South Africa’s apartheid regime, which legally classified citizens by race to maintain white supremacy. These comparisons reveal common patterns of using the law to strip targeted groups of rights under the guise of “social order” or “national security.” The paper also examines modern surveillance measures – from preventive detention of Muslims under anti-terror laws to predictive policing technologies – arguing that the underlying logic of collective suspicion echoes the legacy of the 1871 Act in contemporary forms. Through extensive use of scholarly sources, including archival colonial reports and the writings of historians and anthropologists, as well as eyewitness accounts and recent news reports, we highlight how the narrative of “born criminals” created by the Act remains etched in societal attitudes. We incorporate historical data (caste-based census records, crime statistics) and present-day metrics (crime rates against Dalits, wealth and education disparities by caste) to visualize the enduring impact. Graphs and charts are used to illustrate trends such as the economic marginalization of Dalits and the racial disparities in incarceration that mirror caste inequalities. Ultimately, this study demonstrates that while the Criminal Tribes Act was repealed, its spirit survives in prejudices and legal practices worldwide. It calls for a critical re-examination of laws and social structures that continue to otherize and criminalize marginalized communities, advocating for reforms grounded in equality, restorative justice, and the protection of fundamental rights. The global legacy of the Criminal Tribes Act serves as a cautionary tale of how state power can perpetuate social stratification – and a reminder of the ongoing struggle to dismantle such oppressive systems.

This research paper examines how constitutional frameworks across democracies address the challenge of terrorism while balancing national security with fundamental rights. In an era of heightened security threats, countries have increasingly implemented stringent anti-terrorism laws, often invoking constitutional authority. However, these measures raise significant questions about individual rights, judicial oversight, and the scope of state power.

Abstract This article argues that contemporary Indian law is animated by two intertwined imaginings of law: as a rational, rule-bound process and as a power that makes decisions as a normless act of prerogative. Through ethnographic fieldwork in Delhi’s terrorism courts, the paper examines petitions written by individuals accused under anti-terror laws, revealing how these texts invoke the dual legal imaginaries. Petitions—ranging from formal legal documents to handwritten pleas—are analysed through the idea of epistolarity, to pay attention to both the form and content of these petitions. The article argues that these letters are affective and rhetorical performances that simultaneously invoke imaginings of the law as both rule and prerogative. In doing so, the subjectivity of the petitioners oscillates between rights-bearing citizens and humble supplicants praying for the law’s intervention.

Eradicating terrorism has become a top priority for the Indonesian government in maintaining security and peace in this country. However, these efforts are faced with complex legal challenges. This journal evaluates these challenges and formulates future prospects. Legal challenges include legislative aspects, law implementation, law enforcement, and human rights protection. One of the main challenges is the balance between the need for national security and the protection of human rights. Coordination between law enforcement, intelligence and other related agencies is also a challenge. The Indonesian government's efforts to overcome these challenges involve the establishment of special institutions and mechanisms, training of law enforcement personnel, as well as international cooperation in intelligence exchange and law enforcement. The research method uses a qualitative approach with a literature review of related information sources. Through descriptive analysis, this research explores legal regulations, policies and field practices related to eradicating terrorism in Indonesia. Evaluation of the efforts that have been made includes strengthening anti-terrorism laws, establishing special institutions and units, as well as international cooperation.

Kidnapping is surging in Ethiopia. Cases of severe kidnapping that eventually resulted in the death of the victims and/or exorbitant ransom demands, reaching millions of birrs, are documented. Ethiopians are paying a terrible price for kidnappers. The more kidnappers gain ground and the menace spreads, the greater risk it poses to society, especially by threatening existing societal bonds and solidarity. The dreadfulness of this crime may have lasting impacts on survivors and their relatives. Thus, combating kidnapping should be a top priority for the Ethiopian state. This article examines the legal landscape of kidnapping in Ethiopia. The researcher adopts the rational choice theory of crime to examine the adequacy of Ethiopia’s penal statutes for the prevention and suppression of kidnapping. It uncovers that Ethiopia’s Criminal Code criminalizes illegal restraints and abduction, including political abduction. The anti-terrorism law of the country also criminalizes hostage-taking or kidnapping. Despite these legal provisions, the criminalization of kidnapping in Ethiopia is accompanied by conceptual vagueness and legal gaps that eventually become a challenge for the prevention and suppression of kidnapping.

Human rights protection has been a major concern to States all over the world owing to the prominence it has enjoyed globally. The attainment of human right protection through several legal safeguards has not enhanced the protection of human rights on account of global terrorism. In September 2001, the world watched in horror as four passenger airlines all departed from the U.S East coast airport were hijacked by 19 Al-Qaeda terrorist and flown into public buildings in the United States. Two of the planes crashed into the world trade center, a third hit the United State pentagon building and the forth which was initially headed for Washington crashed into a nearby field. According to official reports, in total, the attack resulted in the loss of 2,996 lives, $10 billion in property and infrastructure, and attracted total cost of $3 trillion. The United States responded by quickly launching a war against terror and invading Afghanistan with the objective of deposing the Taliban which it believed harbored AI-Qaeda. Many countries also responded by strengthening their anti-terrorism laws and giving wider powers to law enforcement and security agencies to prevent or neutralize terrorist attack. The focus of this paper is to examine the impact of terrorism on human rights as well as to critically review the measures put in place by the State and its security agencies in countering terrorism. It is evidently the use of threat or violence to intimidate and cause panic especially as a means of forcing government to do or refrain from doing certain acts that is generally known as terrorism which erode the fundamental rights of the citizens of a State irrespective of legal measures for the protection of such inalienable rights.

In 2024, China witnessed a series of indiscriminate violent attacks against civilians – referred to online as Xianzhong incidents – which triggered widespread public debate around social and legal justice, hyper-nationalism, and xenophobia. Although these attacks arguably meet the legal definition of terrorism under China's Anti-Terrorism Law, they were not officially labelled as such. This article investigates why. It argues that the Chinese state avoided invoking the terrorism label because it did not need to. Unlike separatist movements that garner international support and pose direct challenges to regime security, Xianzhong-style violence does not present an immediate threat to state security. In the absence of institutional constraints, the state can implement extraordinary measures without invoking the political and symbolic weight of terrorism. This article contributes to discussions on the politics of naming, highlighting how the selective application of the terrorism label reflects a hierarchical logic of perceived threats.

This research analyzes the integration between national security interests and rehabilitation in the sentencing system for terrorists in Indonesia, focusing on how the legal framework, policies, and law enforcement practices can combine strict monitoring mechanisms in special correctional institutions with deradicalization and social reintegration programs. The research method relies on a document study of Law No. 5 of 2018 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism, the national action plan for counter-terrorism, as well as a comparative analysis of terrorism sentencing models in Malaysia and Singapore based on a literature review and secondary data. The research results indicate that Indonesia's regulations have adopted a balanced approach between security and rehabilitation by establishing special class correctional institutions and religious psychosocial-based deradicalization programs. However, its implementation is hindered by limitations in human resources, funding allocation, and a lack of post-release monitoring mechanisms. The recidivism rate remains significant despite cases of successful rehabilitation for inmates who receive adequate economic and psychosocial support. The research concludes that the effectiveness of counter-terrorism sentencing requires synergy between institutions, a multisectoral approach, and strengthening the capacity of rehabilitation infrastructure. Policy recommendations include revising the Anti-Terrorism Law to clarify mandatory rehabilitation clauses, enhancing the capacity of law enforcement human resources and correctional facility managers' capacity, and developing post-release economic and community-based reintegration programs.

Indonesia’s national stability and long-term development face serious threats from terrorism and radicalism. Despite introducing anti-terrorism laws and deradicalization programs, efforts mostly rely on repressive strategies. They often fail to address the ideological roots of the problem. This research aims to assess the need for reforming deradicalization policies within a framework of sustainable peace. Such a framework emphasizes the balance between security, social justice, and human rights. Using a juridical-normative and comparative policy approach, the research looks at Indonesia and Malaysia. The findings indicate that Indonesia’s deradicalization efforts are fragmented, lack inter-agency coordination, and lack a comprehensive, multidimensional foundation. In contrast, Malaysia offers a more cohesive model, characterized by institutional synergy and moderate religious education, achieved through partnerships with Islamic authorities. These findings underscore Indonesia’s need for reforms in deradicalization. Such reforms should integrate structural and psychological interventions, enhance institutional accountability, promote cross-sector collaboration, and encourage public engagement. Achieving sustainable peace against evolving radical threats requires human-centered, law-based approaches to promote long-term resilience and inclusivity.

To respond to the growing threat of terrorism, Indonesia has chosen the criminal justice model to combat terrorism. Since the enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Law in 2002, however, studies on the punishment of terrorist offenders are still limited. There has been no research that has attempted to investigate what factors influence criminal sanctions for terrorists and how consistent existing terrorism decisions are with the principle of proportionality. This study seeks to understand how legal factors such as culpability and harm influence the length of criminal sanctions and the extent of sentencing disparity in terrorism cases in Indonesia. Using 710 cases of terrorist crime that the Indonesian Terrorism Cases Database has compiled, this study tests the influence of culpability and harm on sentencing outcomes and the extent of sentencing disparity in terrorism cases in Indonesia. The results show that the level of harm moderates the influence of the level of culpability on criminal sanctions. In addition, the higher the level of harm, the higher the disparity rate. These results illustrate that inconsistencies in decisions still exist in sentencing terrorism cases, and efforts are needed to minimize them.

ABSTRACT This article examines the expansion of the “terrorist organisation” definition in Spanish anti-terrorism law, synthesising Günther Jakobs’s enemy criminal law model with Pierre Bourdieu’s symbolic sociology to analyse the exclusionary practices of designating enemies. While Jakobs highlights the normative logic of enemy criminal law, he overlooks the processes through which states identify enemies. Bourdieu’s focus on the symbolic power of naming in law situates such practices at the core of law, while his focus on law as ritual clarifies Jakobs’s warnings concerning “citizen” criminal law’s contamination by enemy criminal law through blurring boundaries between terrorist violence and civil disobedience. The Spanish case illustrates this potential for expansion and contamination. Beginning in the 1990s, courts expanded the terrorist organisation’s definition to encompass non-violent allies of the Basque armed group ETA. Following ETA’s 2018 disbandment, Spanish high courts have attempted to apply anti-terrorism law to the Catalan conflict through investigations of pro-independence militants and leaders for allegedly directing “terrorist organisations.” However, the ongoing failure of such judicial efforts indicates legal limits to enemy criminal law’s expansion. This study contributes to critical terrorism studies by synthesising Jakobs and Bourdieu as a framework for analysing anti-terrorism law as exclusionary ritual action.

The escalation of global terrorism has posed substantial obstacles to the safeguarding of human rights globally. This study analyzes the intricate relationship between counter-terrorism strategies and human rights, highlighting how security policies may curtail individual liberties. This study conducts a comprehensive examination of several case studies to examine the effects of anti-terrorism laws and procedures in different nations. It further examines the intricate equilibrium that governments must sustain between safeguarding national security and preserving human rights norms. The study utilizes qualitative methodologies, encompassing document analysis and expert interviews in the domain. The findings indicate that although counter-terrorism initiatives are essential for public safety, they frequently lead to infringements of civil liberties, especially impacting underprivileged communities. The paper emphasizes the necessity of tackling these difficulties to guarantee that security measures do not excessively violate basic rights.The report concludes by recommending measures for policymakers to enhance human rights protections within counter-terrorism frameworks. Essential recommendations encompass promoting accountability and transparency in security operations while implementing equitable, non-discriminatory rules. Through the implementation of these measures, governments can proficiently counter terrorism while upholding fundamental human rights principles.

This paper examines contested definitions of terrorism and resistance, analyzing how the US and India instrumentalize such labels to suppress dissent and monopolize violence. Notably, it is worrisome that state narratives regarding who gets to resist remain dominant, despite national wars on terror being widely criticized. Moreover, it is puzzling that the US and India, states with historically diverging foreign policies, are today converging on security issues. To address these dynamics, this paper employs case studies of the US and India to demonstrate how they use anti-terror laws and framing inconsistently, privileging elite interests over democratic processes. While the US focuses on opposing resistance against allies abroad, India directs aggression domestically, reflecting differences in federal structures and foreign policy ideologies. These findings provide theoretical insights regarding how states with divergent foreign policies can act similarly on matters of national security, offering timely insights into the US and India’s management of resistance, revealing systemic mechanisms that reinforce state authority under the guise of counterterrorism.

Maritime security threats take on various forms, ranging from piracy and armed robbery, smuggling via sea (including narcotics, arms, and human trafficking), global climate change, cargo theft, to the emerging issue of maritime terrorism. While piracy and armed robbery are significant concerns, maritime terrorism poses a comparably serious security challenge. Although terrorism and armed robbery are distinct phenomena arising from different motives, their characteristics often overlap. This overlap has led to misconceptions about these concepts and their threats to the maritime domain. Piracy and maritime terrorism share several definitional similarities but also exhibit notable distinctions. The primary difference lies in their motives: piracy is associated with personal financial gain, whereas maritime terrorism aims to achieve political objectives. The second distinction pertains to the methods employed. Piracy generally involves basic tactics, such as boarding vessels and stealing valuable goods, often accompanied by the use or threat of violence. Conversely, maritime terrorism may incorporate these basic tactics but distinguishes itself through its heightened level of violence, intended to attract global attention. The ultimate goal of maritime terrorism is to secure strategic political advantages. Maritime terrorism encompasses a broad scope, as it can occur across various contexts: sea-to-sea, sea-to-land, or land-to-sea. Consequently, it is imperative for Indonesia to enact specific legislation addressing maritime terrorism. The existing anti-terrorism laws are deemed insufficient to combat the complexities of maritime terrorism effectively. Dedicated legislation would provide the necessary legal framework to address this multifaceted issue comprehensively.

ABSTRACT Counterterrorism is a top priority for Indonesia's national security, as regulated in Law No. 5 of 2018 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism. Although this law provides a comprehensive legal framework for dealing with terrorism, its implementation in the field faces significant challenges. This study aims to explore the main challenges in the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Law and identify potential solutions to address these problems. The method used in this study is a qualitative approach, with data collection techniques through in-depth interviews with legal practitioners, analysis of legal and policy documents, and case studies of several terrorism incidents in Indonesia. The results of the study indicate that the main challenges include lack of coordination between institutions, limited resources and training, and issues related to human rights. This study also found that potential solutions include increasing cooperation between institutions, providing better training, and strengthening oversight mechanisms to ensure that law enforcement does not violate basic rights. These findings are expected to provide valuable insights for policymakers and legal practitioners in improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the anti-terrorism law in Indonesia.

This study aims to examine the application of mala in se and mala per se concepts in the counter-terrorism policy in Indonesia, based on Law Number 15 of 2003 in conjunction with Law Number 5 of 2018. Terrorism is categorized as an extraordinary crime that causes serious harm both nationally and internationally. This research employs a literature review and normative legal approach to analyze the application of criminal law norms within the context of human rights protection. The findings show that terrorism, as a mala in se offense, requires a comprehensive legal approach that prioritizes not only national security but also the protection of civil rights. The enforcement of anti-terrorism laws, if applied too broadly and harshly, may violate the principles of due process and substantive justice. Therefore, counter-terrorism efforts must be based on the pro justitia principle, supported by independent oversight and active civil society participation to prevent abuse of power and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

Balancing National Security and Human Rights: A Critical Analysis of Nigeria's Anti-Terrorism Laws

This study examines the role of international cooperation in anti-terrorism law enforcement in response to the complexity of terrorism threats that are transnational and transnationally organized. Using normative research methods that focus on the analysis of laws and regulations and international legal instruments, this study examines the effectiveness of cooperation mechanisms between countries in strengthening law enforcement and preventing acts of terrorism. The findings of the study show that international cooperation, through intelligence exchange, legal harmonization, extradition, and technical capacity building of law enforcement officials, makes a significant contribution to strengthening the effectiveness of anti-terrorism law enforcement. However, challenges in the form of differences in political interests, domestic legal constraints, and state sovereignty issues are still the main obstacles. This study recommends strengthening inclusive cooperation mechanisms based on respect for international norms as a strategic step to deal with the dynamics of terrorism threats globally. Thus, international cooperation is not only a tool of law enforcement but also a key element in terrorism prevention strategies.

Humiliation features in many forms in Pakistan’s fight against global terrorism, the Pakistani police use tools and methods that undermine the human dignity of their own citizens. The level of humiliation of people detained under Pakistan’s anti-terror laws has reached an unbearable limit, causing them to retaliate. Two factors shape the retaliation against anti-terror policing in Pakistan; one is the Pashtuns ‘strict adherence to their culture, while the other is the lack of police professionalism. The only shift in policing has been a negative one, consisting in increased violence and disrespect for human dignity.