Counter-terrorism Law Research Articles

Flash, the emperor and policies without evidence: counter-terrorism measures destined for failure and societally divisive.

Governments around the world are uniting in trying to defeat terrorist movements. In this context, recent counter terrorism laws in the UK place public duties on all citizens to help prevent terrorism. Yet, the science of predicting rare events such as terrorist offending yields consistently poor results. There are ethical, clinical and scientific dilemmas facing the professions if we are to investigate social, religious and political belief systems in routine assessment in order to inform judgements about terrorist offending risk. A balanced and evidence-based approach is necessary.

Chapter 3: Canada (From 'Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law')

This chapter sets out a general overview of key facets of Canada’s counter-terrorism law enacted between 2001 to 2015 and related case law. It addresses the definition of terrorism and new terrorism offences added to the Criminal Code in 2001; terrorism prosecutions and sentences; investigative powers of police and intelligence agencies (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Canadian Security Establishment); the listing of terrorism offences or individuals; terrorism financing and related offences; immigration detention; the use of evidence obtained by torture; the role of the military and extra-territorial counter-terrorism activities; secrecy claims and evidence; and remedies for serious violations of human rights in the course of counter-terrorism. The chapter also contains a brief post-script addressing the content of bills C-44 (Protection of Canada from Terrorism Act) and C-51 (Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015).

The Impact of Ethiopian Anti-Terrorism Law on Human Rights Defenders: A Difficult Balancing Act?

This paper analyses the ongoing debate about national security and the protection of human rights (liberty) in general, but with a specific emphasis on impacts of Ethiopian anti-terrorism law on the rights and work of human rights defenders. The research explores the link between law and the situation of HRDs from the perspective of human rights and legal approach. In assessing these the study approaches qualitative research method. Data from primary and secondary sources are used. Data collection methods such as interview, focus group discussion and observation have been employed. Human rights defenders are subjected to several marginalization. HRDs face challenges because of their commitment to strive for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In doing so, numerous actors have been involved in endangering their life, rights and work. The study reveals that Ethiopia’s counter terrorism law has significantly undermined the rights of HRDs and affected their work. Moreover, the findings show that counter terrorism laws in the country have gradually eroded fundamental human rights enshrined in the country’s constitution and international human rights treaties signed by the country.

The Protection of Human Rights in Saudi Counter-terrorism Laws

Human rights constitute a significant aspect of the law. Human rights are protected by national and international legal and judicial apparatuses. In addition, promoting respect for human rights is a key purpose of the United Nations (UN) and its international bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council, established in 2006, and the International Criminal Court, created in 1998. The UN has also issued a variety of protocols, declarations and agreements regarding human rights and their protection, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saudi legislation has initiated and allowed various Saudi human rights institutions, namely the Saudi Human Rights Commission and Saudi National Society for Human Rights. In particular, Saudi legislation has focused on Sharia principles when it comes to the interpretation and implementation of secular international human rights laws. Saudi legislation has enacted a variety of contemporary human rights laws, including the Child Protection Law and the Law of Protection from Abuse. The human cost of terrorism has been felt virtually in every part of the globe. Terrorism has disrupted peace, security, liberty and physical integrity of individuals at every level. Protection and security of its individuals is a fundamental obligation of the state. Accordingly, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has taken several legal measures, allowed under Islamic Sharia and International laws, to ensure the protection of human rights of its citizens and residents and safeguard the society against possible threats of terrorism and bring the criminals to justice. Saudi legislation has ensured human rights applications in other Saudi criminal laws, such as the Saudi Criminal Procedure Law of 2002, amended in 2014 (hereinafter SCPL), and the Saudi Law of Terrorist Crimes of 2014 (hereinafter SLTC). This short commentary provides a concise summary about the existing Saudi legislation related to terrorist crimes and human rights protection. of what we have created, with [definite] preference” [5]. Moreover, Article 26 of the Saudi Basic Law of Governance states that “The State shall protect human rights in accordance with the Islamic Sharia” [6]. Therefore, it can be seen that the protection of human rights in Saudi Arabia is constitutional since it is encouraged by Islamic principles and Saudi laws. Human rights are usually discussed with specific regard to the implementation of criminal punishment and procedure. Therefore, human rights are the subject matter of lots of international debates and conferences. In recent times, the majority of the countries all over the world, and especially Saudi Arabia, have suffered from terrorism. Saudi Arabia has enacted a variety of criminal laws that look after the benefits of Saudi society, one of which is the Saudi Law of Terrorist Crimes (SLTC). This law examines terrorism incidents and facilitates Saudi authorities to protect the society from terrorism and terrorists. This law contains 41 legal clauses. It explains the criminal procedure for terrorist crimes as well as referring to the superior law, which is Saudi Criminal Procedure Law (SCPL), and addresses any legal clause that is not provided in the SLTC (Article 40 of the SLTC). This commentary briefly looks at human rights protection identified under the SLTC.

A Tale of Two States: Rule of Law in the Age of Terrorism

The European counter terrorism laws offer to the author the chance to deal with on one side the appropriate balance between the threat of terrorism and constitutional values; on the other side the exam of the main “laws of fear”.The survey reveals that the surveillance measures are able to pass the constitutionality test, since the parameters of precautionality and proportionality have not been taken into account.In the conclusion, the Author suggests a new model of international law of fear compatible with the rule of law.

Suppressing Foreign Terrorist Fighters and Supporting Principled Humanitarian Action: A Provisional Framework for Analyzing State Practice

In 2014, reports suggested that a surge of foreign jihadists were participating in armed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. The United Nations Security Council responded by imposing in Resolution 2178 (2014) an array of obligations on member states to counter the threat posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” (FTFs). In the intervening year, those states have taken a range of actions — though at various speeds and with varying levels of commitment — to implement the FTF obligations imposed by the Council.Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind life-saving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world — including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have been increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action. Part of their interest stems from the fact that certain counterterrorism laws may, intentionally or unintentionally, adversely affect principled humanitarian action, especially in regions where terrorist groups control territory (and thus access to civilians, too). The effects of these laws may be widespread — ranging from heightened due diligence requirements on humanitarian organizations to restrictions on travel, from greater government scrutiny of national and regional staff of humanitarian organizations to decreased access to financial services and funding. Against that backdrop, this briefing report has two aims: first, to provide a primer on the most salient issues at the intersection of counterterrorism measures and humanitarian aid and assistance, with a focus on the ascendant FTF framing. And second, to put forward, for critical feedback and assessment, a provisional methodology for evaluating the following question: is it feasible to subject two key contemporary wartime concerns — the fight against FTFs and supporting humanitarian aid and assistance for civilians in terrorist-controlled territories — to meaningful empirical analysis?

Counterterrorism policies and practices: health and values at stake.

Counterterrorism policies and practices: health and values at stake.

Assessing Unconventional Applications of the 'Terrorism' Label

This book chapter explores some non-conventional applications of the label of “terrorism” and considers calls for continued expansion of the definition of terrorism to encompass crimes that have not traditionally been considered terrorism. Part one briefly lays out the working definition of terrorism on an international level, and the gray areas in which individual nations make their own determinations as to what constitutes terrorism and, on the other hand, what is often considered ordinary crime. Part two focuses on the definitions of terrorism under a number of common counterterrorism statutes in U.S. federal law, and then considers contexts that fall outside of the common usage of terrorism in the context of U.S. law, exploring instances in which gang violence and animal rights-based crimes are treated legally as terrorism. Part three briefly considers the application of the label of “terrorism” in India, where concerns that broad and vague definitions of terrorism, religious bias against Muslims and targeting of disfavored political minorities, combined with extraordinary powers granted to the government to deal with the threat of terrorism, pose a serious risk to due process and the rule of law. Some have called on governments to continue to broaden the reach of counterterrorism law to reach other issues, such as sex trafficking or some hate crimes. The Author concludes that most such efforts are founded in a well-placed sympathy for the victims of crimes, and some are backed by powerful groups with political influence. However, because in many democratic nations terrorism is granted unique legal treatment as an area in which expansive government power with lessened oversight and protection for individual rights is considered acceptable, importing such standards into other contexts is inviting a distortion of the traditional limits on governmental power and would allow for increases in government abuse and overreach.

Book review: V Sentas, Traces of Terror: Counter-Terrorism Law, Policing, and Race

Book review: V Sentas, Traces of Terror: Counter-Terrorism Law, Policing, and Race

Transnational counter-terrorism law: law, power and legitimacy in the ‘wars on terror’

The transnationalisation of counter-terrorism law is a key feature of law after 11 September 2001. The development of a ‘transnational counter-terrorism law’ has been led by efforts through the UN Security Council, in particular in its resolution 1373 (2001) and 2178 (2014). This paper uses these examples of transnational law to critique the idea of transnational criminal law and to examine the extent to which the transnationalisation of law poses new questions for the legitimacy of the criminal law. The paper argues that efforts to categorise and contextualise the law need to be undertaken alongside critical projects to understand changes in state power and in the use of that power to regulate politics across the globe.

Counter Terrorism Law and Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia: The Need to Strike a Right Balance

Counter Terrorism Law and Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia: The Need to Strike a Right Balance

Exclusion under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention: The Uncertain Concept of Internationally Serious Common Crimes

Strong conceptual and doctrinal connections exist between the interpretation of Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention and the international criminal law principles developed in relation to the international crimes with which that sub-clause is concerned. Article 1F(c) also imports a strong international aspect, concerning itself with acts that compromise international peace and security. Far less clear are the connections between international criminal law or transnational law and exclusion from refugee status under Article 1F(b) for the commission of a ‘serious non-political crime’. Although the articles of the Convention are said to speak with an autonomous international voice, whether this is a refugee law voice or an international criminal law voice is uncertain. In the absence of a ready link to the direct concerns of international criminal law or transnational law, determining if common criminality is internationally serious is more an interpretive than prescriptive exercise. Refugee law decision-makers need to examine international and transnational legal instruments more broadly, engage in a comparative law analysis of national legal systems, and pay special attention to the specific facts of the individual case. In cases involving acts of terrorism, developments in counter-terrorism law may be particularly impactful on the exclusion question, although determining individual responsibility for an excludable crime remains crucial. Despite the growing connection between international/transnational law developments and exclusion from refugee status, no international legal definition of serious common crimes has been formulated. Determinations under Article 1F(b) will therefore continue to demand a contextual approach that sits on the contested borders of international law.

Illegitimate: When Moderate Muslims Speak Out

Illegitimate: When Moderate Muslims Speak Out

Ideas and Influence: Scholarship as a Harbinger of Counterterrorism Institutions, Policies, and Laws in the People's Republic of China

This article demonstrates how scholarship on terrorism in China has provided the intellectual backdrop against which China's leadership has developed the country's counterterrorism institutions, policies, and laws. Building on the linkages between scholarship and policy-making, the article suggests potential avenues for policy reform in China's current counterterrorism architecture.

Towards Transnational Counter-Terrorism Legislation?

After more than 50 years of suppression conventions on counter-terrorism, intense preoccupation by the Security Council in the last decade and a vast array of soft law instruments on the topic, it is time for a stocktaking of principles underlying the making of global counter-terrorism law. The article argues that global counter-terrorism law can best be explained as an emerging ‘transnational legislation’. ‘Transnational legislation’ refers to abstract-general norms on the conduct of individuals with cross-border application or effect.The article addresses global counter-terrorism law both from a doctrinal as well as from a socio-legal perspective. On a doctrinal level, the key features of transnational counter-terrorism norms are analyzed (their regulatory nature and depth as well as their potential for ‘self-execution’ or ‘direct effect’). Then, a socio-legal analysis sheds light upon the reasons why and how transnational actors make counter-terrorism legislation.

Book Review: EU Counter-Terrorism Law: Pre-Emption and the Rule of Law, by Cian C Murphy. (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012)

Book Review: <i>EU Counter-Terrorism Law: Pre-Emption and the Rule of Law</i>, by Cian C Murphy. (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012)

Applying Just War Theory as a Framework to Assess the Moral Legitimacy of Australiaa's Counter-Terrorism Laws

This paper adapts just war theory into a framework for assessing the morality of states’ legislative responses to their international obligations to counter terrorism. The jus ad bellum principle is adapted to provide for its application as a framework to assess the moral legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws. The framework is then applied as a practical tool to assess the moral legitimacy of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws. It is proposed that the framework could aid discussion and debate of the moral legitimacy of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, by providing a clearly defined set of standards for assessing the laws in a way that considers all relevant criteria. It is also proposed that the framework could be used to inform decision-making in the development and application of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws. It is concluded that the framework could also be applied to assess the moral legitimacy of other states’ legislative responses to counter terrorism, by evaluating the extent to which their laws are consistent with the adapted just war theory criteria.

The Prosecution of Organised Crime: Removing the Jury

Serious organised crime groups may enjoy virtual impunity through the corruption and coercion of parties involved in the criminal justice process. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, this is most evident in the intimidation of witnesses and jurors, leading to difficulties in successful prosecution of organised criminality. One notable response to this phenomenon is to hold juryless trials for serious indictable offences, mirroring a similar approach in counter-terrorism legislation arising from the political violence in Northern Ireland. Despite common rationales, such trials have been operationalised differently in these neighbouring jurisdictions: in England, Wales and Northern Ireland ‘ordinary’ legislation was introduced, whereas in Ireland juryless trials are permitted under existing counter-terrorism laws. This article reviews the problematic dimensions of both legislative schemes, and considers their application by the courts since enactment. After outlining viable alternatives, it concludes that juryless trials may be necessary in limited instances, and if so, the English model is to be preferred.

Country Report on Counterterrorism: United States of America

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led to profound changes in societal viewpoints, political agendas, and the legal authorization to combat terrorism. The United States continues to struggle with keeping its population safe while maintaining the principles of democracy and the rule of law essential to the nation’s character. The U.S. response to terrorism has been multifaceted and expansive, reflective of the U.S. role in global security; debate over these matters will continue for the foreseeable future. This report, prepared for the American Society of Comparative Law, offers summary, analysis and critique of many aspects of counterterrorism law, including the definition of terrorism and designation of terrorist organizations; application of international law; criminal law treatment of terrorism, including financing and material support; investigative powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies; treatment of immigrants; executive power and the CIA targeted killing program; detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects; and access to courts and the treatment of classified information.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: Constitutional Evolution, Not Revolution?

This article analyses the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) regime, which replaced the controversial system of control orders, and examines recent jurisprudence. It suggests that changes can be made to individual TPIM notices and to constitutional oversight mechanisms both of the regime and in counter-terrorism law generally. At the individual level, reform to TPIM notices would help further the evolution of counter-terrorism law towards ideals intrinsic to the rule of law. At a more general level, increased constitutional safeguards should be considered, not just as a feature of the TPIM regime, but also as a template for evolutionary change to other counter-terrorism powers. The ultimate aim should be to relinquish the use of TPIMs in favour of prosecution and surveillance strategies.