强化基层反恐能力 从源头上解决反恐问题

上个世纪以来,各种国际恐怖主义逐渐兴起,被称为是"20世纪的政治瘟疫"。世界上有案可查的恐怖组织多达1000多个,而行动活跃、破坏力强、影响大的组织也有几十个。进入到21世纪,恐怖主义活动仍然日益猖獗,国际恐怖主义犯罪的危险已经成为了威胁当今社会安全的最重要的因素之一。而我国也受到了国际恐怖势力、邪教恐怖势力的侵犯,因此对恐怖势力的防范与处理是关系到国家安全和人民生命财产安全的重中之重。如何强化基层的反恐能力,从根源上找到解决恐怖主义行为的措施,是反恐行为的关键所在。本文将首先分析我国地方恐怖主义的发展现状,介绍恐怖主义的特点和危害,接下来对完善基层反恐提出一些看法和建议,讨论如何从根源上解决反恐问题。     

反恐对国家自卫权的挑战与发展

国际恐怖主义是威胁世界和平安全的重要因素之一,国际社会在反恐方面作出了诸多努力。自卫权是反抗恐怖主义活动的重要措施之一,然而在新时期下恐怖主义呈现新的发展特点,自卫权于今日的行使面临着前所未有的挑战,但其部分规则也得到了一定程度的发展。通过剖析反恐与自卫权之间的联系与牵制关系,解读联合国宪章等相关法律规范深入探讨反恐对国家自卫权的挑战与发展,可以推进国际反恐斗争良性实施,从而最终实现国际社会的和平安全。     

联合国安理会反恐历程的回顾及评析

联合国宪章为安理会采取包括动用武力在内的强制行动打击国际恐怖主义提供了隐含的法律依据,如果国际恐怖主义达到危及国际和平与安全的程度,安理会就可以采取包括动武在内的强制行动介入反恐斗争。事实上,安理会已多次采取强制行动来打击国际恐怖主义。从法理方面分析,安理会可以授权以武力打击国际恐怖主义。打击国际恐怖主义与人权的国际保护并不矛盾;而保护人权,正是反恐的主要目的之一。     

Review and Analysis on UN Security Council＇s Anti- Terrorism History

联合国宪章为安理会采取包括动用武力在内的强制行动打击国际恐怖主义提供了隐含的法律依据,如果国际恐怖主义达到危及国际和平与安全的程度,安理会就可以采取包括动武在内的强制行动介入反恐斗争。事实上,安理会已多次采取强制行动来打击国际恐怖主义。从法理方面分析,安理会可以授权以武力打击国际恐怖主义。打击国际恐怖主义与人权的国际保护并不矛盾;而保护人权,正是反恐的主要目的之一。     

我国反恐刑事程序特别规定的完善

引言 当前,世界反恐形势日趋严峻,恐怖主义事件层出不穷,ISIS组织成为新的恐怖主义热点问题。我国的反恐形势也较为紧张。在各国加强反恐的同时,联合国第59届大会在2004年A／59／514号文件“消除国际恐怖主义的措施”中,呼吁各国“确保有一个涵盖这个问题的所有方面的全面法律框架”,“申明各国必须确保一切为反恐采取的措施均符合其根据国际法承担的义务并应依照国际法,特别是国际人权法、难民法和人道主义法制定这种措施”。     

完善上海合作组织反恐法律机制之建言

上海合作组织建立至今，在机制建设方面取得了许多辉煌的成就，但目前仍然处在机制建设的早期阶段。有待于进一步完善的地方很多，至少在“反恐机制”的完善方面还有如下几方面值得我们深思：建立常设性联合军事机制；构建上海合作组织6＋N的反恐合作伙伴机制；区别对待恐怖主义、分裂主义、极端主义的引渡问题，对恐怖主义引渡问题适用“不引渡则起诉”原则；适当补充公约中有关反恐人权保障的条款。     

反恐突发事件与人权保障

在当今中国,恐怖主义活动日趋猖獗,已严重地威胁着经济发展、社会繁荣及人民生命财产安全。作为国际社会热点问题,反恐与人权保护已经受到了各国的普遍关注,也随着反恐发展的新局势引起我国的极度重视。打击恐怖主义有利于更好的保护人权,但反恐措施的不当也会对人权造成损害。因此,如何处理好反恐与人权保护的关系,是各国都在探寻的问题。本文以昆明火车站3.1恐怖暴力事件为引子,来探讨在反恐中应该如何做好人权保护。     

ISIS网络恐怖主义活动对我国反恐形势的影响及应对措施

ISIS利用网络进行恐怖主义活动,是我国国家安全的潜在威胁。国内恐怖分子利用网络大肆传播暴恐音视频,已成为暴恐活动多发频发的根源性问题,具有严重的社会危害性。面对日益严峻的网络反恐形势,必须加快构建网络反恐机制,防范和打击网络恐怖主义,维护国家安全。文章介绍了网络恐怖主义的类型,分析了ISIS网络恐怖主义活动的特点,指出ISIS网络恐怖主义活动对我国反恐形势的影响,提出了打击网络恐怖主义的应对措施。     

人权视角下的中国金融反恐法律机制

近年,出于打击恐怖主义融资的需要,形成了国际金融反恐法律机制。该机制在运行过程中,与公民金融隐私权、个人信息权以及无罪推定原则、比例原则等产生了一定的张力。在加强金融反恐法律机制的同时,我国仍需要健全金融反恐法律体系,调整金融反恐执法机构职能,加强金融反恐措施侵害个人权利时的法律保障,完善金融反恐法律机制,实现反恐怖主义与人权保护的平衡。     

反恐与个人权利保护——以“9·11”后美国反恐法案和措施为例

“9.1 1”事件震惊了全世界。“9.1 1”后 ,为防止恐怖主义活动 ,各国都相继颁布了一些法律 ,加强了反恐的措施和力度。这些措施对于有效地防范恐怖主义活动 ,起到了有益的和有效的作用 ,但同时 ,也遭致一些来自人权方面的指责 ,认为有些措施侵犯了公民的权利。在反恐中 ,如何既有效地打击和防范恐怖主义活动 ;同时又不致使公民的合法权益受到侵害 ,这对世界各国来说都是一个严重的考验。     

城市反恐重要目标安全防范试点与研究

“9·11”以来,国际恐怖活动与反恐斗争的较量已经持续了十余年,但以全球化为背景的恐怖主义威胁不仅没有消失,反而持续存在且更加突出.“三股势力”和由于各种原因导致的个体暴力恐怖威胁将成为今后相当长一段时间内影响我国安全与稳定的主要因素.借鉴国内外相关研究和城市反恐试点单位的成功做法,提出如下对策建议：一是建立党政领导,部门参与的反恐防范工作格局;二是加强防范恐怖犯罪公众教育,增强公众的防范意识;三是建立统一高效的情报信息工作机制;四是明确责任,建章立制,夯实基础;五是制定应对预案,通过演练予以巩固完善;六是强化检查考核,促进防范责任和措施落实.     

Human Rights as a Security Threat: Lawfare and the Campaign against Human Rights NGOs

In this article, I show how the term lawfare is being deployed as a speech act in order to encode the field of human rights as a national security threat. The objective, I claim, is to hinder the work of human rights organizations that produce and disseminate knowledge about social wrongs perpetrated by military personnel and government officials, particularly evidence of acts emanating from the global war on terrorism—such as torture and extrajudicial executions—that constitute war crimes and can be presented in courts that exercise universal jurisdiction. Using Israel as a case study, I investigate the local and global dimensions of the securitization processes, focusing on how different securitizing actors—academics, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, policy makers, and legislators—mobilize the media, shape public opinion, lobby legislators and policy makers, introduce new laws, and pressure donors to pave the way for a form of exceptional intervention to limit the scope of human rights work.     

Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook

Global terrorist networks are dependent on receiving financial support from a variety of sources, including individuals, charities and corporations. Also known as terrorist financing, the potential of terrorism finance to resemble a global threat has been recognised and also its closeness to other international crimes such as money laundering and organized crime. As a result, possible responses have to constitute co-ordinated, multi-lateral and multi faceted actions under the umbrella of a wide range of international stakeholders such as the United Nations Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force. Combating terrorism requires a ??holistic?? approach which allows for a mix of possible responses. Besides ??kinetic?? security operations (such as targeted killings) and the adoption of criminal prosecution measures another possible response could be the use of US styled transnational civil litigation by victims of terrorism against both, terrorist groups and their sponsors. Corporations, both profit and non profit, such as banks and other legal entities, as well as individuals, are often complicit in international terrorism in a role of aiders and abettors by providing financial assistance to the perpetrators (cf. UN Al-Qaida Sanctions List: The List established and maintained by the 1267 Committee with respect to individuals, groups, undertakings and other entities associated with Al-Qaida). Such collusion in acts of terrorism gains additional importance against the background of so called ??Hybrid Threats??, NATO??s new concept of identifying and countering new threats arising from multi-level threat scenarios. This article discusses the potential impact of US terrorism lawsuits for the global fight against terrorism.     

可持续发展与人权的时空耦合及动态演进——兼论中国消除贫困和其国际法意义

从寻求保护地球机会的“另外之路”到破解全球性问题的金钥匙,可持续发展逐渐登上国际舞台,并与人权在一定时空邂逅。其关乎人的自身发展问题,包括消除贫困以及平等、人权等诸多领域,而人权是加快取得更公平和可持续发展进展的明智方式。两者相互耦合、相互促进,可持续发展因人权因素的渗透而使其内涵不断扩大,人权的内涵也因可持续发展理念的介入而更加丰富,两者在不断深化内涵、增添时代内容中悄然演进。贫困是不可持续的根源,阻碍了可持续发展;贫困状态严重妨碍人权的充分实现和享有。中国消除贫困的国际法意义深远,不仅为国际扶贫脱困提供中国样本,而且在维护世界稳定、和平安全、人权保障、消除恐怖主义等方面均有重要影响。     

Designing ETPIMs around ECHR Review or Normalisation of ‘Preventive’ Non‐Trial‐Based Executive Measures?

This article considers the transition in 2012 from control orders to more ECHR‐compliant ‘terrorism prevention and investigation measures’ under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. It argues that the interaction between security and liberty over the post 9/11 years has the appearance of a dialogue between courts and the executive that has resulted in a diminution in the repressive character of non‐trial based preventive measures. But such an impression, it will be contended, is obscuring the recalibration of ECHR rights that has occurred, easing the path to the introduction of the enhanced version of TPIMs, under the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. The proposed ETPIMs exhibit many of the objectionable features of control orders and are currently ready to introduce if the threat level rises.     

论绑架案件侦查与人权保障

当前,刑事案件侦查中是否尊重人权成为社会关注的热点问题,绑架案件侦查中涉及到多方人员基本人权保障问题,引人注目,尤其公开绑架人质案件的接连发生,使人们对绑架案件的人权问题极为关注。人权观念在绑架案件侦查中的确立与发展包括三方面内容:一是“人质安全第一”观念的提出和实践;二是从一元安全观到多元安全平衡价值观的思辩;三是可持续性侦查策略与措施的凸现。     

Sustaining freedom,security and justice – from terrorism to immigration

This article focuses on two areas central to sustaining freedom, security and justice: terrorism and immigration. Their inter-relationship and the instruments and measures adopted to prosecute them have significantly advanced judicial co-operation, communitisation of security, and re-assessment of the nature and requirements of EU governance in an EU committed to human rights, liberal democracy and realising sustainable freedom, security and justice. The article outlines the background to EU involvement in judicial co-operation. It then explores EU competence, instruments and measures developed to (i) combat terrorism and international organized crime; and (ii) immigration and asylum. It concludes that the inextricable linkage between the two has serious implications for future EU democratic governance. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

澳大利亚反恐怖主义立法述评

为应对日益严重的恐怖主义威胁,澳大利亚加快了反恐怖主义立法的进程,澳大利亚反恐怖主义法对基础性概念进行界定,增设了恐怖主义犯罪罪名,完善恐怖主义犯罪的诉讼程序,对有关部门进行特殊授权,并且严格了对澳大利亚本土的防范措施.澳大利亚反恐怖主义立法采用附属式的立法模式,并涉及预防、处置及制裁等多重内容,体现了普通法系的"程序优先"的特征,极大地扩张了国家行政权力.随着反恐斗争的开展,普通法系国家愈加重视制定法的作用.但是,反恐怖主义立法引发的人权问题、民族问题和宗教问题也是值得深思的.     

Crime‐Control in the Post‐Wall Era: The Menace of Security

Over the past ten to fifteen years, an increasing number of social issues have become linked, and then subordinated, to security policy. This policy area has witnessed a paradigm shift, with the emergence of a new security mentality. The crumbling of the walls built up during the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet empire, meant the disappearance of the East versus West polarity. And as this world order, based on a balance of terror, passed into history, the nature of the global threat situation was transformed. The antagonisms of the Cold War had hardly had time to cease creating fear before new threat images emerged onto the scene. Unlike the Cold War situation, where world peace was threatened by a frenetic arms race between two highly concrete superpowers, the perceived threats of the 1990s became increasingly vague. The military menace was superseded by what was said to be a much more diffuse criminal threat. For what is it that lies concealed behind such concepts as ‘cross‐border crime’, ‘organized crime’, ‘terrorism’ and the like? Previously, security policy analysts had been able to localize the source of a given threat with precision. Their benchmark was now gone, however. Once the established geographical demarcations between Us and Them ceased to apply, it was found that the enemy might instead be in our midst.     

Resisting the advance of the security state: The impact of frameworks of resistance on the UK'S securitisation agenda

From the turn of the new century, the UK witnessed an unprecedented advancement in the state's security apparatus. These developments and their human rights implications have been extensively documented by the socio-legal and wider academic community. However, less well-understood has been the forms of resistance which have placed fetters on the operation of state powers. This article identifies three dominant frameworks through which resistance to the ‘securitisation agenda’ has materialised. In doing so, we assess the relative ‘successes’ and ‘limitations’ of each framework. Ultimately, we seek to identify the frameworks that offer the greater transformative potential in promoting alternative forms of security to those promulgated by the ‘new terrorism’ discourse.