Terrorism and the law: Historical contexts, contemporary dilemmas, and the end(s) of democracy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Terrorism and terrorists in contemporary international law
Many loopholes and unanswered questions remain in the field of terrorism and counter-terrorism at the international level. I decided thus to address three of them in my master thesis: the lack of international definition of terrorism, the role of the United Nations bodies in countering terrorism and how both terrorism and counter-terrorism measures can challenge human rights. Hopefully, the reading of my master thesis will advance a better understanding of terrorism under contemporary international law, and the main challenges ahead.
Routledge Handbook of Law and Terrorism
Routledge Handbook of Law and Terrorism, 2015
In the name of security Terrorism is a criminal phenomenon that has struck, and still does strike, all corners of the globe. Instances of local organisations abound, which, through death and destruction, submit certain societies to violence and coercion. 1 Spain and the UK are two of the countries that have experienced up close the barbarity of this form of criminality, at the hands of the armed groups Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) 2 and the Irish Republican Army (IRA), 3 respectively. Moreover, since the attacks of 11 September 2001, to that regional terrorism has been added a 'global' variety: 'a limitless violence exerted by Islamic fundamentalists that threatens the maintenance of worldwide security'. 4 This global terrorism has vented its violence through the attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004, and in London on 7 July 2005. According to statistics, casualties inflicted by ETA amount to 829 up to the end of 2010. 5 Even worse, the Irish organisation IRA has caused the deaths of more than one and a half thousand victims in Northern Ireland. 6 As for the global terrorists, the attack of 11 March 2004 caused 190 fatalities, 7 whereas the attack of 7 July 2005 left 52 people dead in the explosions 38
A critique of the international legal regime applicable to terrorism
Terrorism is a global phenomenon that permeates state borders and predominantly causes immeasurable suffering to civilians. The need for international cooperation and concerted efforts in combating terrorism cannot be gainsaid. Already, sectoral instruments have been passed to regulate certain aspects of terrorism. However, without a single terrorism specific instrument, acts of terrorism generally classified will fall under spheres of international law which include; public international law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. This paper makes a critical analysis of these spheres of international law and how they apply to states' counter-terrorism efforts.
Asia Pacific Law Review, 2015
The events of 11 September 2001 resulted in an extraordinary increase in academic attention paid to counter-terrorism and international law. The years since then have seen numerous changes to the international legal landscape pertaining to counter-terrorism, and to the very nature of terrorism itself. Several international legal scholars have attempted to keep pace with current developments in this field,1 with Leiden University Professors Larissa van den Herik and Nico Shrivjer offering one of the most recent attempts to comprehensively scan and analyze the variety of counter-terrorism strategies that fall under the wide umbrella of the international legal order in their edited collection.2 This review begins by briefly summarizing the three main parts of Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order, which focus on international cooperation in the prevention and investigation of terrorism (Part I), the use of force against terrorists (Part II), and the intersection between human rights law and international human rights law in the fight against terrorism (Part III). My focus then turns to analyzing how, and to what extent, the book makes a scholarly contribution to the academic field and the policy arena. Lastly, some of the book's limitations will be noted and some issues to be discussed in future editions will be suggested.
Reaching an agreed definition of terrorism has proved problematic, with over 100 different working definitions counted. Consensus stumbles particularly on issues of legitimacy, assessing reasons behind the violence and whether a state can commit acts of terrorism-or whether they are to be excluded as they have the monopoly on legitimate violence. Greater empirical research and independence in terrorism scholarship is required to formulate an agreed definition. States should not be exempt from terrorism as part of a broader movement excluding any consideration of the motives or causes cited as the reason for the attack. The definition should focus on the nature of the act, not the philosophy behind it. For even if the cause or grievance is understandable, and can be reasonably argued with a defence of necessity, that does not mean the violence undertaken should cease to be illegal and inhumane. The ends must be separated from the means. Clarity of definition is crucial for counter-terrorism efforts and the protection of civil liberties. Over-zealous recourse to draconian legislation peddled to prevent terrorism has qualified the rights of citizens, not only reducing their ability to hold their government to account, but also imposing laws that have the potential to work as a tool for terrorist recruitment rather than counter-terrorism.
GL4889A: International Law and Terrorism – Final Essay
In this essay, I argue that classifying terrorists as criminals would be the more legally compliant and politically efficient counter-terrorism strategy, although political barriers exist to fully exploit its usefulness.
PhD programme in History, Studies of Security and Defence, 2019
The role of terrorism in political discourse changed dramatically over the last fifty years, moving from ambiguity to the forefront of public policy and security concern. After the 9/11 attacks, terrorism has earned the news headlines, and has become a global security priority. Governments and the international community have enhanced measures to counter international and transnational terrorism, although there is no universally accepted definition of the term. The lack of an undisputed and legally binding definition of terrorism leaves significant room for free interpretation by policymakers. Governments are given what is essentially a carte blanche to develop programs and counter-terrorism initiatives that may lead, or have already led, to the development of policy that infringes on fundamental human rights. This thesis investigates the connection between terrorism and fundamental human rights. The question that guided this dissertation is the potential consequence of arbitrary and politically-driven definitions of terrorism over counter-terrorism policy and fundamental human rights. The thesis moves from a historical framing of the concept of terrorism that changes with time. There are many definitions of the term, and there is no common definition with legal value. The current debate on terrorism is linked almost exclusively with non-state actors, which implies that state and terrorism have no linkage, even if there are evidences of these ties. The thesis scrutinizes the instrumentalization of terrorism, starting from an analysis of the concept based on three pillars: historical, theoretical-conceptual and legal (in the light of international law and human rights law). Then an empirical analysis based on these tools through the use of political and legal mechanisms to obtain a political output was conducted. To answer the starting question, the research moved from a historical-documentary analysis, then took into consideration the literature, and focused on how the states use the justification of the fight against international terrorism to restrict fundamental human rights. After the theoretical-conceptual and legal analysis, the research focuses on the legal aspects of the War on Terror and security policies. Large part of the empyrical research is dedicated to scrutinize the case of Turkey after the 2016 coup d'état attempt, to review some rulings of the European Courts, and to examine some prominent 'terrorist' organizations. While this topic presents a serious challenge, it does open much room for possible explorations of new fields of research without necessitating a fixed point of departure – or arrival. The thesis ends suggesting some future research directions.