Terrorism investigations and prosecutions in comparative law (original) (raw)

Abstract

The purpose of that event and of this special issue is to highlight thematic similarities and differences between the meta-models of accusatorial and inquisitorial criminal procedures and to assess their implications and outputs as applied to terrorism investigations and prosecutions. The focus of our research reflects the fact that terrorism has become a global preoccupation and therefore the reactions of nation states facing up to the same agenda become comparable. By contrast, before 9/11, those countries most afflicted by terrorism struggled to engage the attention of fellow nations, and so a lack of energy characterised international cooperation and comparative developments. Even the mighty United States had to resort to subterfuge and force in the absence of wholehearted assistance from allies, such as in the case of Fawaz Yunis, who was lured from Lebanon onto a yacht in the eastern Mediterranean Sea with promises of a drug deal and arrested once the vessel entered international waters. 1 Many countries had no terrorism at all, and even some which had experienced destabilising terrorism campaigns, such as (West) Germany, produced a minimal legislative response confined to tangential issues (such as the role of lawyers and prison conditions). 2 By contrast, the United Kingdom (UK) had not stinted on domestic legislation against terrorism before 9/11, the latest compendium, the Terrorism Act 2000, arriving on 19 February 2000. However, British diplomats had long striven with limited success to win allies in countering terrorism, such as in the tasks of closing off funding for the IRA 3 or securing the rendition of fugitives. 4 The tide turned immediately following the 9/11 attacks. United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1373 of 28 September 2001, article 3, demanded the promotion of international cooperation and the national implementation of the then 12 terrorism-related multilateral treaties including, above all, the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Finance 1999. 5 As an indicator of the response, the four nations which had become signatories to the Convention before 9/11 (Botswana, Sri Lanka, UK and Uzbekistan) were joined within two years by 128 others. As inspected and documented by the UN Counter Terrorism Committee (at least until it stopped publishing the details in 2006), 6 a profusion of

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (46)

  1. US v. Yunis 924 F.2d 1086 (1991).
  2. See Kurt Groenewold, 'The German Federal Republic's Response and Civil Liberties', Terror- ism and Political Violence 4 (1992): 136-50.
  3. See James Adams, The Financing of Terror (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986);
  4. Clive Walker, The Anti-Terrorism Legislation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 77-8; Jonathan M. Winer and Trifin J. Roule, 'Fighting Terrorist Finance', Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 44 (2002): 87-104.
  5. See Geoff Gilbert, Transnational Fugitive Offenders in International Law (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1998), Chap. 6.
  6. UN Treaty Series 2178, 197. See further Andrea Bianchi, Enforcing International Norms against Terrorism (Oxford: Hart, 2004);
  7. Paul Allen Schott, Reference Guide to Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism, 2nd sup. ed. (Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, 2006).
  8. In addition, asset sanctions were required by UNSCR 1267 of 5 October 1999 against the Taliban, as extended to Al Qa'ida by UNSCR 1333 of 19 December 2000. These have now been replaced by UNSCR 1988 and 1989 of 17 June 2011.
  9. European Union Council Framework Decision on Terrorism. See Francesca Galli and Anne Weyem- bergh, eds, EU Counterterrorism Offences (Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2012).
  10. Public Law (PL) 107-56.
  11. See Anti-Terrorism Proclamation 2009 (Proclamation No. 652/2009). See Article 19, Comment on Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, 2009, of Ethiopia (London: 2010); Wondwossen Demissie Kassa, 'Examining Some of the Raisons d'Etre for the Ethiopian Anti-terrorism Law', Mizan Law Review 7 (2013): 49-66.
  12. See Trevor Jones and Tim Newburn, Policy Transfer and Criminal Justice (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007);
  13. Mark Evans, 'Policy Transfer in Critical Perspective', Policy Studies 30 (2009): 243-68.
  14. See Kim Lane Scheppele, 'Global Security Law and the Challenge to Constitutionalism after 9/ 11', Public Law [2011]: 353-77, 365.
  15. For its activities, see FATF, Terrorism Financing (Paris: FATF, 2008); and FATF, International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation: The FATF Recommendations (Paris: FATF, 2012).
  16. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and Democracy 2013 (London: Cm. 8842, 2014), 93; Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report 2014 (London: Cm 9027, 2015), 67.
  17. Home Office, Response to the Seventeenth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2013-14 HC 231: Counter-Terrorism (London: Cm 9011, London, 2015), 6.
  18. See Colin Murray, 'Out of the Shadows: The Courts and the United Kingdom's Malfunctioning International Counter-Terrorism Partnerships', Journal of Conflict & Security Law 18 (2013): 193-232.
  19. London: Cm. 7587, 2009.
  20. Human Rights and Democracy: The 2012 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report (London: Cm. 8593, 2013).
  21. Kim Lane Scheppele, 'International Standardization of National Security Law', Journal of National Security Law & Policy 4 (2010): 437-53.
  22. Royal Decree No. 44 (12/2013). See http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/20/saudi-arabia-new- terrorism-regulations-assault-rights; https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2014/02/saudi- arabia-new-terrorism-law-one-more-tool-crush-peaceful-protest/. For another view, see Mehmood-Ul-Hassan Khan, 'Saudi Arabia's Counter Terrorism Law: A Strategic Orientation', Defence Journal Pakistan 17 (April 2014): 17, http://www.defencejournal.com.
  23. Laura Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2008).
  24. David Cole, 'English Lessons', Current Legal Problems (2009): 136-67.
  25. Kent Roach, The 9/11 Effect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2012. 30. Ibid., 427.
  26. Ibid.
  27. See Frank Foley, Countering Terrorism in Britain and France (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2013).
  28. See Anna Oehmichen, Terrorism and Anti-terror Legislation, the Terrorised Legislator?: A Comparison of Counter-terror Legislation and Its Implications on Human Rights in the Legal Systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany and France (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2009);
  29. Aniceto Masferrer, ed., Post 9/11 and the State of Permanent Legal Emergency (Dor- drecht: Springer, 2012); Anneke Petzsche, Strafrecht und Terrorismusbekämpfung -Eine ver- gleichende Untersuchung der terroristischer Vorbereitungshandlungen in Deutschland, Großbritannien und Spanien (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013); Aniceto Masferrer and Clive Walker, eds, Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights And The Rule Of Law: Crossing Legal Bound- aries in Defence of the State (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013);
  30. Francesca Galli, The Law on Terrorism: the UK, France and Italy compared (Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2015).
  31. See Foley, Countering Terrorism in Britain and France.
  32. See Jacqui Hodgson, 'The Role of the Criminal Defence Lawyer in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedure', in Strafverteidigung vor neuen herausforderungen: denkanstöße aus sieben rechtsordnungen, ed. Thomas Weigend, Susanne Walther, and Barbara Grunewald (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2008), 45-59.
  33. See European Council, The Stockholm Programme -An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens (Brussels: 2010/C 115/01);
  34. European Commission, Green Paper: Strength- ening Mutual Trust in the European Judicial Area -A Green Paper on the Application of EU Criminal Justice Legislation in the Field of Detention (Brussels: COM(2011) 327 final).
  35. Austin v. UK, App. No. 39692/09, (2012) 55 EHRR 14; Colon v. Netherlands, App. No. 49458/ 06, (2012) 55 EHRR SE5.
  36. Gillan v. UK, App. No. 4158/05, (2010) 50 EHRR 45.
  37. See Clive Walker, The Anti-Terrorism Legislation, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), Chaps 6, 7.
  38. See Adam Tomkins, 'Justice and Security in the United Kingdom', Israel Law Review 47 (2014): 305-29; Clive Walker, 'Living with National Security Disputes in Court Processes in England and Wales', in Secrecy, Law and Society, ed. Greg Martin, Rebecca Scott Bray, and Miiko Kumar (London: Routledge, 2015), 23-42.
  39. A v. UK, App. No. 3455/05, (2009) 49 EHRR 29.
  40. See Clive Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), Chap. 7.
  41. See Inquiry into Legislation against Terrorism (London: Cm 3420).
  42. Clive Walker, 'Intelligence and Anti-terrorism Legislation in the United Kingdom', Crime, Law and Social Change 44 (2006): 387.
  43. See EU Counterterrorism Coordinator, Foreign Fighters and Returnees (Brussels: 15715/14, European Council, 2014);
  44. European Council, Foreign Fighters and Returnees (Brussels: 16002/14, European Council, 2014);
  45. Daniel Byman, 'The Homecomings', Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (2015): DOI:10.1080/1057610X.2015.1031556; David Malet, 'Foreign Fighter Mobilization and Persistence in a Global Context', Terrorism & Political Violence (2015): DOI:10.1080/09546553.2015.1032151.
  46. This point is made explicit in the Treaty on European Union, art. 4(2): 'The Union … shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.'