The Universal Terrorist: The International Community Grappling with a Definition

Steps have been taken on the international level towards determininga widely acceptable definition of terrorism as a basis for internationalconventions. One basic distinction in this context is betweenstate-sponsored ‘official’ terrorism and individualterrorism directed against those in power. With respect to ‘individual’terrorism, a widely accepted definition refers to acts or threatsof violence committed with the intention to intimidate a populationin furtherance of some non-economic goal. The old problem ofdistinguishing terrorists from legitimate freedom fighters hasbeen alleviated but not yet totally resolved. Another issueconcerns the question of whether to exempt actions of and/ordirected against armed forces from the definition of terrorism.Overbreadth rather than vagueness is a problem of many currentdefinitions of terrorism: since they include as ‘baseoffences’ less serious violations of individual or communalinterests and even the mere intention or threat to commit them,they fail to reserve the stigma of terrorism to those offencesthat truly threaten the social fabric.     

THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS IN FEDERAL COURTS: 1980–1998*

Research Summary: This study reports findings from the American Terrorism Study. The data show that from 1980 to 1998, the U.S. government periodically tried accused domestic and international terrorists through the use of traditional criminal trials. The extent to which federal prosecutors “explicit politicized” these trials (and the success that the politicization had) varied among the types of terrorist groups. Explicit politically was not found to be successful in trials of domestic terrorists but seemed to work for trials involving international terrorists. Over the 20‐year period, however, federal prosecutors began to rely more heavily (and more successfully) on the politicization of the criminal acts by international terrorists. The results also show that international terrorists, like their domestic counterparts, are much less likely to plead guilty. Finally, the study shows that these traditional trials have resulted in international terrorists being punished more severely than domestic terrorists. Unfortunately, the practice of performing these politicized trials within the venue of the federal court system may have been compromised by defense strategies that capitalized on the due process procedures so prominent in the U.S. system of justice. In the wake of the terrorism attacks in September 2001 by foreign nationals, the federal government began to take the next step in its “war against terrorism” by instituting the use of military tribunals. Policy Implications: Although the federal government has been relatively successful in the prosecution of terrorism in America in the past two decades, the movement toward the use of military tribunals has perhaps become inevitable (as the use of the traditional criminal trial for international terrorists manifests weaknesses). In the short term, it is likely that several international terrorism cases stemming from the September 2001 attacks and other subsequent attacks (which may be presumed) will be tried in federal courthouses across the country (even with the advent of military tribunals). Federal prosecutors will need to be trained on the specifics of trying these kinds of cases. In the long term, the use of military tribunals will provide greater ease of prosecution for the federal government. Long‐term consequences such as retaliatory attacks and attacks aimed at the release of political prisoners cannot be ignored by policy makers.     

The fight against terrorism and crime in the context of National, Regional, and Global security

The large quantity of illegal drugs remaining in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime presents an opportunity for both drug dealers and terrorists. The potential for generating vast sums of money could lead to“ narcoterrorism,” sustaining and financing terrorism over the long term. Narcoterrorism is not specifically recognized as a crime in many countries, nor is“ state sponsored terrorism.” The Republic of Georgia is currently drafting legislation to do this. That project, described here, is managed by the National Security Council of Georgia and includes several tasks to determine the causes and nature of the threats as well as the development of tools to combat them.     

The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) represents a sui generisinternational tribunal on various levels. It is the first timea treaty-based Tribunal has been established through a resolutionof the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII. A furtherunique feature is its sole dependence on domestic substantivecrimes. The attempt to include crimes against humanity in theStatute did not succeed, despite the fact that the elementsof a crime against humanity seem to be discernable in the conductthat falls within the jurisdiction of the STL. References tointernational and regional terrorism instruments, such as theArab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, were alsoabandoned. The Tribunal will rely on Lebanese criminal provisionsregarding terrorism, illicit associations, crimes and offencesagainst life and personal integrity. Lebanese law provides anold but concrete definition of terrorism. This raises the questionof whether the Lebanese definition, with its strengths and weaknesses,could assist in the evolution of a well-structured definitionof international terrorism. The possibility of ‘internationalizing’the Lebanese definition will depend on two factors: the judges’approach in adopting the Tribunal's rules of evidence and procedure,and then more importantly their creativity in developing thejurisprudence of the Tribunal.     

Criminalizing the Financing of Terrorism

This article begins with the widespread expectation that ‘followingthe money trail’ would be an effective means of hamperingterrorist activity. So far, however, that effectiveness hasbeen less than certain, and financial services providers arguethat, at most, they would be able to check names against lists(they are adamant that the risk-based approach does not applyhere). Legal difficulties deepen the factual problems: boldstatements in international Conventions that terrorist activitiesare not political crimes, do not really solve the fundamentaldilemma that a distinction needs to be made between freedomfighters and terrorists if combatants are merely aiming at therestoration of the democratic order. On a more practical level,international organizations (namely the United Nations and theFinancial Action Task Force on Money Laundering) have createda system of mechanisms to freeze suspected funds of terrorism.So far, the procedures for freezing and de-freezing do not meetthe generally accepted standards of a fair hearing (as definedby the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsor the European Convention on Human Rights). The author concludesthat the current way of dealing with the issue of financingof terrorism is far from convincing.     

The American Immigration System: A Structural Change with a Different Emphasis

When the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) wasdisbanded in 2003 many of its components were absorbed intothe new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). One of thesenew entities, called US Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS),now has the formidable task of processing and keeping trackof all the applicants for entry into the United States. Itsgoal is to serve the immigrant community effectively, efficiently,and fairly, while avoiding the problems and deserved criticismsof its predecessor organization. USCIS is expected to achievethis goal under the administrative authority of DHS that hasgoals that may not be compatible. The primary mission of DHSis to fight terrorism, and providing good service to clientsmay be incidental. In this reorganization many members of theimmigrant community fear they are viewed as potential terrorists.That it also has responsibility for refugee applicants raisesthe issue of the blurring of immigration and asylum —the former is about control whereas the latter should be focusedon protection. The possible effects of these organizationalchanges on immigrants, refugees, and the nation are reviewedin this paper.     

Foreword

In this Foreword to a Symposium on the newly established SpecialTribunal for Lebanon (STL), the editor of the Symposium highlightsinnovations the STL offers, and challenges it may face to becomea viable institution. He queries whether the STL was intendedto be a cripple from birth. Acknowledging that the ICTY earlierproved expectations of its impotence wrong, the author nonethelessargues that the STL not only lacks some of the tools the ICTYenjoyed, but also faces two additional constraining social conditions:more highly attuned and wary potential defendants; and the verydoctrine that the ICTY and its peer tribunals have elaborated.The author argues that there is a danger that, in their zealto bring the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination to justice,the STL and its backers in the Security Council may damage thatvery doctrine, and damage the credibility of the enterpriseof international criminal justice. On the other hand, a cautious,professional STL could contribute significantly to that enterprise,by demonstrating the feasibility of a more streamlined criminalprocedure, by extending the technologies of international criminaljustice to crimes of terrorism, and by taking a small step towardsending the culture of impunity and violent dispute resolutionthat prevails in Lebanon.     

Definition of "Terrorism" in the UN Security Council: 1985-2004

International debate about the problems of defining terrorismhistorically centred on the General Assembly. Yet, between 1985and 2001, the Security Council adopted a range of measures addressingterrorist threats to peace and security, and analysis of theincidents involved reveals much about the Council's understandingof "terrorism". After September 2001, problems of definitionbecame acute, since the Council adopted general legislativemeasures against terrorism—with serious legal consequences—withoutdefining it. The Council has encouraged States to unilaterallydefine terrorism in national law, permitting wide and divergentdefinitions. A non-binding Council definition of late 2004 failsto remedy the serious difficulties caused by the lack of anoperative definition in Council practice.     

A comparative analysis of conviction outcomes of American domestic terrorists

This research uses quantitative analyses to determine whether or not conviction outcomes differ across three major American domestic terrorism groups: ecoterrorists, left-wing extremists, and right-wing extremists. Findings suggest that ecoterrorists receive lighter treatment within the criminal justice system while controlling for important variables, such as gender, age, and count severity. Findings highlight differences between “home-grown” terrorist groups, departing from a large segment of terrorism research focused on domestic versus international comparisons or terrorist versus civilian comparisons. Results elicit new research questions to understand why domestic terrorists receive differential treatment within the criminal justice system, despite controlling for key variables.     

The Paradigm of the War on Crime: Legitimating Inhuman Treatment?

Since 11 September 2001, a new paradigm has developed in criminallaw. Parallel to the idea of the ‘war on terror’,a paradigm based around ‘war on crime’ has emerged.Inevitably, however, a paradigm of war leads to abandoning scientificapproaches based on a legal-moral vision (crime, guilt and punishment)in favour of a merely pragmatic vision, which associates nationalsecurity with social defence. Based on an unclear concept ofdangerousness, presumed by simple membership in a group labelled‘enemy’, the goal is to neutralize, or even eliminate,the criminal/deviant. When combined with a denial of internationalprotections, deconstructing national criminal law thus runsthe risk of pushing a black hole through the rule of law. Manyhave criticized such a paradigm; however, the author pointsout that the paradigm of the war on crime (and more generallythe war on terror), provided that it respects internationallaw, can be useful, because it shows the need to overcome thebinary opposition between war and peace, as well as betweenwar crimes and ordinary crimes. Nonetheless, it must be clearthat this paradigm can only be one of transition. To overcomethe war–peace dichotomy in a global community and to reconstructthe relationship between terrorism and torture, neither a ‘warcrimes’ nor a ‘war on crime’ paradigm is trulysufficient. Only through the amplification of a paradigm of‘crime against humanity’ (itself unstable and evolvingbut free from the war metaphor) can we reconstruct humanityas a value and make it the cornerstone of any legal system.     

恐怖主义犯罪应对模式研究

司法模式、战争模式、治理模式是三种应对恐怖主义犯罪的模式。司法模式把恐怖主义界定为一种犯罪行为。为此反恐是侦查破案与打击犯罪的问题。此模式核心是恢复法律的权威,维护社会治安秩序。战争模式把恐怖主义界定为一种战争行为。为此反恐是打败或消灭敌人、取得战争胜利的问题。此模式核心是打击、歼灭恐怖分子并取得战争胜利。治理模式把恐怖主义界定为国家安全治理方面的缺失、低效或失败及其导致的对民众安全服务的缺失与低效。为此反恐是加强和改善有关恐怖主义问题的治理,以提供更有效的安全服务。此模式核心是塑造一种安全环境。治理模式对于恐怖主义及反恐问题界定不同于战争模式、司法模式。这种界定具有决定性影响。其直接决定这三种反恐模式在视野、目标、思路、标准、力量、措施与手段、时间维度、战略角度、精神层面等方面的不同。     

Looking at terrorism through left realist lenses

While terrorism has moved into the spotlight of criminological study, including critical criminology, it has yet to be thoroughly explored from a left realist perspective. Left realism addresses four aspects of crime: causes of offending, impact on the victims, and both official and public responses to crime. A left realist approach to terrorism would argue that similar to those who engage in street crimes, many terrorists are socially or economically disenfranchised young men who become involved in terrorism through connections with similarly situated members of the fringe population, and “get tough” policies on terrorism will backfire. Four propositions of left realist theory organized by DeKeseredy and colleagues are presented and addressed through the extant literature, which offers partial support for a left realist explanation of terrorism.     

Bent into Security: Barrister Contribution to a Skewed Order in Two Terrorism Prosecutions in Australia

This article explores two terrorism prosecutions – R v. Benbrika and Ors and R v. Elomar and Ors – to probe how Australian lawyers approach the integration of national security interests into the heart of public law. A brief background is provided followed by an analysis of how the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth), as amended, and the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) deviate from the legal order to produce a ‘skewed blend’ between national security and criminal justice. We examine three ways in which barristers contribute to bending of process in counter‐terrorism trials: accommodation to the precautionary standard, the resetting of equality of arms expectations, and brokered agreements that depend on the deferential relationships within the court. Consequently, the moral asymmetry of terrorism is the backdrop for the ‘plausible legality’ of ‘just world’ derogations from liberal politics.     

Is Terrorism a Crime or an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing?

Common law systems, in criminal cases, distinguish between theguilt/innocence proceedings and the sentencing stage. This isnot the case in civil law systems where criminal trial consistsof a single phase, combining the inquiry into guilt with sentencing.Under common law practice many facts relevant for sentencingare considered irrelevant at the stage of finding guilt forthe commission of the crime. Aggravating elements, therefore,address a fundamental distinction of substantive criminal lawbetween guilt and dangerousness: guilt is a determination ofresponsibility for a prior wrongdoing; dangerousness is a speculativefuture determination. The intensification of terrorist activityin the past few years has made terrorism one of today's mostpressing problems. But is terrorism a crime or an aggravatingfactor in sentencing? In this article, the author challengesconventional wisdom regarding the meaning of ‘terroristcrimes’, by providing a conceptual understanding of ‘terrorism’,as well as articulating a theory of guilt. Terrorists seldomexpress ‘guilt’. The word ‘terrorism’describes, instead, an overriding motivation, a way of acting,rather than the objective circumstances of acting. Terrorismis nothing but common crimes although committed with an overridingmotivation of imposing extreme fear on the nation as such. Theauthor presents the conceptual grounds of the phenomenon ofterrorism as it has evolved through history, before enquiringinto the meaning of ‘terrorist crimes’: the overridingmotivation associated with the concept of terrorism constitutesthe degree of cognate dangerousness of terrorist crimes.     

The perspective of “justice” of international law in the global context

After the Cold War and the quick development of globalization, non-state acts by international organizations, transnational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), etc., are becoming more active. Global issues with regard to, inter alia, environment, human rights, terrorism are constantly emerging, which bring great challenge to the Westphalia System that is based on state sovereignty and centered on the national state. At the same time, the values, which include “individualism” and “global justice,” are constantly casting impact on international legal system. Doubtlessly, in the current context of international relations, “justice among states” is still the reasonable positioning of the value of modern international law. However, making “individualism” and “global justice” compatible and modifying “justice among states” is an inevitable trend. At the same time, the rule brought about by the modification on the value of justice must be handled properly.     

Dreams and disillusionment: engagement in and disengagement from militant extremist groups

People engage in terrorism and similar forms of violent extremism for a variety of reasons, political or non-political. The frequent failure to achieve what they expected or dreamed about is also usually the source of their disillusionment, and subsequently, a main reason to disengage from violent extremism. Individuals involved in terrorism often come from a diversity of social backgrounds und have undergone rather different processes of violent radicalisation. Profiles of terrorists do not work as a tool to identify actual or potential terrorists because such profiles fail to capture the diversity and how people change when they become involved in militant extremism. This study suggests a more dynamic typology of participants in militant groups, based on dimensions which represent dynamic continuums rather than static positions. During their extremist careers individuals may move from resembling one type initially into acquiring more of the characteristics of other types at later stages. When it comes to prevention and intervention measures, one size does not fit them all. The typology may be used as an aid to develop more specific and targeted strategies for preventing violent radicalisation and facilitating disengagement, taking into account the diversity and specific drivers behind different types of activists.     

Cyber terrorism challenges: The need for a global response to a multi-jurisdictional crime

With the widespread concerns about cyber terrorism and the frequent use of the term “cyber terrorism” at the present time, many international organisations have made efforts to combat this threat. Since cyber terrorism is an international crime, local regulations alone are not able to defend against such attacks; they require a transnational response. Therefore, an attacked country will invoke international law to seek justice for any damage caused, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Without the aid of international organisations, it is difficult to prevent cyber terrorism. At the same time, international organisations determine which state court, or international court, has the authority to settle a dispute. The objective of this paper is to analyse and review the effectiveness and sufficiency of the current global responses to cyber terrorism through the exercise of international jurisdiction. This article also touches upon the notion of cyber terrorism as a transnational crime and an international threat; thus, national regulations alone cannot prevent it. The need for an international organisation to prevent and defend nations from cyber terrorism attacks is pressing. This paper finds that, as cyber terrorism is a transnational crime, it should be subjected to universal jurisdiction through multinational cooperation, and this would be the most suitable method to counter future transnational crimes such as cyber terrorism.     

Proactive counter-terrorist strategies in conflict with human rights

Three standard governmental policy responses to terrorism have been identified: a military one, treating the fight against terrorism as a form of warfare; a police-based one, treating it simply as a form of criminal activity, to be detected and then defeated using (perhaps some modified version of) the criminal justice system; and a political one, viewing it as a form of armed rebellion to be resolved through negotiation and the political process. All three responses to terrorism may be evident in any particular instance.     

Enemies Everywhere: Terrorism, Moral Panic, and US Civil Society

Since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, terrorism has experienced a prominence in discourse across the U.S. The representations of terrorists and terrorism by the news media and politi have contributed to the edifice of terrorism as a moral panic. This treatise examines the social effects that have or may occur due to the social construction of a moral panic of terrorism. The thematic frame is situated within Cohens stages of a moral panic. We offer an analysis of the medias depiction and coverage of acts of terrorism, and legislative, political and legal responses in the form of social and cultural changes occurring from the creation of a moral panic. In addition, we offer an analysis of the states vested interest in the social construction of this panic, leading to increased levels of fear, targeted at the general publics consciousness. This article concludes that the presentation of terrorism and terrorists by the media and politi have contributed to unnecessary levels of panic and fear, misguided public consciousness, and the development of legislation creating negative social ramifications yet be seen.