Academic literature on the topic 'Counter-terrorism law'

Members of minority groups have historically been both victims and perpetrators of terrorism. This article examines how international and national legal controls on terrorism have addressed or impacted upon members of minority groups. In particular, it identifies three key areas in which legal questions arise: (1) the extent to which terrorism laws protect minorities (which is principally a question of the definition of terrorism, particularly ‘motive’ elements); (2) how terrorism laws apply to—or exempt—members of minorities who perpetrate terrorism (which concerns both definition and exceptions to definitions); and (3) how counter-terrorism laws differentially or disproportionately impact on minorities (which concerns definition as well as over-policing).

AbstractContemporary British counter-terrorist legislation is dominated by ‘counter-law’ in Richard Ericson's terms: by using law against law, it systematically undermines the rule of law. This paper supports this proposition by developing a detailed ‘archetypal’ account of the rule of law considered as a critical ideal, drawing on Fuller's ‘morality of law’. The rule of law is identified with four tendencies in law – towards greater universality, knowability, followability and justifiability – and ‘counter-law’ with tendencies to block or reverse all of these. Counter-law tendencies in contemporary counter-terrorist legislation are discussed in detail, with particular reference to the proliferation of inchoate, preparatory and situational offences. This critique is also related to contemporary debates on law and counter-law; it is argued that critiques which relativise or historicise the liberal model of the rule of law fall short by failing to engage with it on its own terms, thereby undervaluing its utility as a normative resource. The paper concludes by discussing the range, significance and gravity of the departures from the rule of law that have been identified, considering some counter-arguments and drawing conclusions for policy-makers and legal scholars.

AbstractThis article examines counter-terrorism efforts in the EU as it matures as a field of law. It sets out three critiques of EU counter-terrorism law: that of ineffectiveness, of anti-constitutionalism, and of contrariness to human rights and the rule of law. It considers these critiques in light of the development of policies and legal initiatives—against foreign terrorist fighters and against radicalisation. It concludes that there are both persistent problems, and some improvements, in the law. The EU's capacity to meet the challenges posed by terrorism and the counter-terrorism imperative, and how it does so, has global impact. The article concludes with an argument for better law-making in the EU to ensure it serves as a better exemplar of transnational law.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the unintended consequences, financial exclusion, of counter-terrorism financing regulations in terms of their impact on financial inclusion and, consequently, the creation of an ineffective counter-terrorism financing framework. A further aim is to make recommendations to mitigate these unintended consequences. Design/methodology/approach This subject is examined by using the practices of a range of countries and organisations. The interdisciplinary approach of the paper is highlighted, which comprises criminal law, banking law, international law and human rights law. Findings Financial exclusion is a focal point that results in ineffective counter-terrorism measures which are caused mostly by the formal financial sector, in particular, the banking system. The financial exclusion also leads to counter-productive counter-terrorism financing through a low risk-appetite, de-risking, de-banking, financial exclusion and using unregulated or less-regulated and supervised financial systems. Originality/value No article comprehensively analyses financial exclusion as a consequence of counter-terrorism financing framework. The paper examines the process of counter-terrorism financing regulations, which leads to financial exclusion. In addition, the impact of financial exclusion on all relevant actors, such as individuals, correspondent banking relationships, money and value transfer services, charities and virtual currencies, is examined.

Since 2001 a transnational counter-terrorism space has emerged that is vast in its scale and ambition and which can be discerned at both ‘universal’ (i.e. United Nations) and regional (e.g. European Union) levels, as well as in other formal and informal international organisations (for example the G7 and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum). This article explores the question of politicisation within that transnational counter-terrorism space, and the potential for meaningful politicisation in respect of initiatives and measures emanating from transnational processes. Taking the example of ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ it argues that a shift in arena to the transnational counter-terrorism space has fundamentally challenged the capacity for effective and meaningful politicisation; that the transnational counter-terrorism space can be depoliticised by design, that where this happens the domestic counter-terrorism space is depoliticised by implication, and that the legal benefits of politicisation may thus be lost to the detriment of rights, legality and accountability.

The purpose of this study was to analyze local law enforcement's counter-terrorism capabilities as it relates to the varying size of United States local law enforcement agencies. Data for the study came from a study entitled "Impact of Terrorism on State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies and Criminal Justice Systems in the United States, 2004". Statistical analysis revealed that there are large disparities in the allocation of resources to intelligence gathering, analyzing, and sharing between smaller local law enforcement agencies and their larger counterparts. Furthermore, smaller agencies are not interacting with federal agencies in a manner consistent with the interactions between larger agencies and federal authorities. However, the study did reveal officers in smaller local law enforcement agencies have undertaken the duties of homeland security on a level commensurate with those in larger local law enforcement agencies.

Nowadays, terrorist crimes are still threatening global security. Since the 21st century, with the rapid development of modern science and technology, such as "Internet +", "big data" and "artificial intelligence", along with the changing political situation of international society, the global distribution of economic benefits, and the global flow of civilization and culture, it has brought about information sharing and a better life in human society. At the same time, it has spawned the form innovation of terrorist crimes. Terrorism is increasingly threatening non-traditional security areas. The non-traditional security theory transcends the concept of national boundaries and the limitations of national sovereignty, and examines the security construction of various countries from the perspective of global security. It focuses on a wider range of fields, a wider vision and a deeper depth, and is a kind of "shared security". Terrorist crimes challenge international authority, national sovereignty and tolerance for crimes, and affect the development of many fields in the world, which belongs to the non-traditional security field. Because of its inherent destructive, violent, dual-purpose, international and decentralized characteristics, for many years, the global defense against terrorist crimes has formed three paths: "war path", "criminal justice path" and "global governance path". From the reality, the path of war is a last resort in the current global counter-terrorism, but it is not worth vigorously promoting. Criminal justice path can effectively reduce the operation cost of counter-terrorism measures, is conducive to the realization of human rights protection, and is the main counter-terrorism means, but it is still insufficient to deal with terrorist crimes, and must be further improved and strengthened. The global governance path is put forward on the basis of effectively eliminating the threats and security problems brought by terrorism on a global scale. It relies on the global countries to form a community of common destiny for all mankind to effectively fight terrorism. Although this goal is far away, it is the fundamental way to completely eliminate terrorism. In the value choice of counter-terrorism, the theory of priority protection of national security and global security has become the main theory from the perspective of non-traditional security. Under the non-traditional security concept, counter-terrorism must first ensure national security, and then pursue individual freedom. Without national security, there is no individual freedom. But at the same time, we should give full consideration to the theory of safeguarding human rights and bottom line justice. The protection of human rights against terrorism from the perspective of non-traditional security must start from three levels: terrorist crimes and human rights protection; the protection of state power and human rights, as well as the protection of terrorists' rights. In a civilized society, even if terrorists are as evil as enemies, they cannot be treated like enemies, but must adhere to the rule of law and guarantee their basic rights. When dealing with terrorist crimes at the international level, we should see that international counter-terrorism faces practical problems such as inadequate legal system, imperfect cooperation mechanism and practical difficulties. By adhering to the main position of the United Nations in counter-terrorism, we should formulate the United Nations Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Convention and improve the international unified counter-terrorism criminal policy, and finally achieve effective governance of terrorism. At the domestic level, it mainly focuses on the establishment of a comprehensive and effective counter-terrorism mechanism, starting from the counter-terrorism institution building, counter-terrorism platform building and counter-terrorism legal system. The most important thing is to build and perfect the counter-terrorism legal system. By combing our counter-terrorism legal system, we should further polish it from the aspects of defining the basic concepts of terrorism, improving the counter-terrorism substantive law and perfecting the counter-terrorism procedural law. In this process, we must carry out the criminal policy of combining punishment with leniency, and finally realize the balance between security and human rights protection. This thesis is divided into five chapters to study the terrorist crime in the field of non-traditional security, hoping to make a theoretical response to the causes of terrorism, extremism, terrorist crime, terrorist activity crime and the preventive countermeasures in China through such a theoretical review, combing and exploration, especially to provide a useful theoretical reference for the prevention, strike and elimination of such crimes. At the same time, it is also a theoretical clarification of the terrorist crimes, terrorist activities crimes and extremist crimes in the non-traditional security field. Chapter one: this chapter mainly clarifies the relevant concepts, and understands the traditional security theory, non-traditional security theory, terrorism, extremism and separatism from the most basic level; distinguishes terrorist activity crime, terrorist crime and extremist crime, including the discrimination of their concepts, characteristics, types and purposes. More importantly, terrorism, which has been debated over its concepts for a long time, is serious crimes not only endangering the international security, but also endangering the overall national security of China, such as political security, homeland security, military security, economic security, cultural security, social security, network security, science and technology security, information security, ecological security, resource security, nuclear security and so on. The safety of people's lives and property can be ensured only when such crimes are eliminated. The second chapter discusses the causes and harms of terrorist crimes. From the international political level, national religious belief, interest distribution and other perspectives, this chapter analyzes the causes and harms of terrorism. This kind of harm is analyzed from the aspects of international society and domestic society. As far as the harm of international society is concerned, it causes the internal disintegration of the country, causes the internal management of the country out of control, intensifies regional conflicts and wars, people living nowhere, the number of refugees increases sharply, all kinds of serious crimes rise, global economic development slows down, and the number of global crimes increases. As far as the harm of the domestic society is concerned, it intensifies the escalation of national conflicts and the rise of extreme forces, which leads to the instability of social management order, the destruction of social dynamic balance, the general lack of security and trust of the public, the reduction of trust of the whole people, the destruction of social integrity system, and the loss of moral concepts of social groups, which will form the vicious circle of everyone is in danger, or some scholars call it the so-called "mutual harm mode" of modern society. Finally, the terrorist crimes basically spread all over the world, endangering the international political environment and extending to China, resulting in the slow development of domestic economy, the destruction of the inheritance of local cultural system, endangering everyone's own development and individual survival, etc., causing unprecedented disasters in the whole human society, such as environmental degradation, food shortage, water pollution, and trust crisis. Chapter three: expound the value orientation and the path of counter terrorism. The biggest harm of terrorist crime lies in the destruction of global security. Therefore, the value of counter-terrorism in theory is mainly embodied in: the theory of human existence, the theory of international relations, the value theory of priority of global security interests, the theory of dynamic balance between the protection of basic human rights and the strengthening of state power, the theory of principles, rules and systems of international human rights law. Today's "counter-terrorism model" mainly adopts "war model" (military strike), "criminal justice model" (judicial governance) and "global governance model" (social governance) to control, eliminate and combat the spread and frequency of terrorist crimes. However, looking at these models, we can find that the war model basically failed because the United States withdrew its troops from Iraq and other countries, the judicial governance was in the stage of continuous attempt and improvement because of the poor connection of domestic laws of various countries, and the global governance was impressed by various factors among countries, and also became a theoretical system of continuous attempt to break through and improve. At present, the international community has not created a theoretical model that can completely eliminate terrorist crime and terrorist activity crime. Most countries adopt intelligence early warning, rapid elimination, post elimination and other ways to the occurrence of terrorist attacks, in order to effectively control the spread of terrorist extreme ideas, reduce the overall probability of terrorist attacks, and thus continuously weaken the viability of terrorist organizations around the world. Chapter four: the current situation and improvement of international response to terrorist crime. Due to the differences of political ideology and the restriction of interest pattern, the counter-terrorism legal system is not perfect, and it is difficult to form a systematic and effective "international unified criminal code system" or "international unified criminal policy" to regulate international terrorist crimes. In this regard, the international level of the regulation of terrorist crimes should mainly adopt international criminal cooperation, criminal judicial assistance, regional alliances, and other ways (such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization).Therefore, the conclusion of international conventions is particularly important. Only with legal basis can we realize effective cooperation across national sovereignty. It can not only ensure respect for the sovereignty of all countries, but also help to carry out practical cooperation to deal with terrorist crimes of all countries. Chapter five: expound the path and system construction of dealing with terrorist crime in China. From the perspective of China’s society, it is generally in a period of stable development, but still unable to cope with sudden terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks happen under the planning of terrorists, so it is urgent to improve the criminal law of China. Over the years, China has preliminarily constructed the main frame of counter-terrorism, and formed a three-dimensional prevention system in the aspects of counter-terrorism stance, counter-terrorism organization setting, counter-terrorism fund control and counter-terrorism Internet supervision. In terms of specific disposal, China has established counter-terrorism organization and platforms, such as information exchange platform, early warning and prevention platform and public division platform. But fighting terrorism according to law is always one of the goals pursued by the rule of law. Although China has established a relatively complete counter-terrorism legal system, the counter-terrorism legislation has certain defects and deficiencies in three aspects: basic concepts, anti-terrorism substantive law and anti-terrorism procedural law. It is found that there are some specific problems in China’s counter-terrorism legislation, such as unclear definition of basic concepts, poor convergence of laws in the field of counter-terrorism substantive law, confusion of identification subject and procedure in the field of counter-terrorism procedural law, confusion of administrative power and criminal investigation power, and poor procedural independence. The definition of the basic concept should strictly abide by the behavior theory of objectivism criminal law, and should be expanded in combination with international practice to cover specific cases from the literal and theoretical extension of the articles. In the field of counter-terrorism substantive law, the power boundary between administrative law and criminal substantive law should be clarified, and legislative conflict of jurisdiction should be solved, strictly implement the concept of modesty of criminal law, and correctly define the specific boundaries between administrative illegal activities and criminal activities, as well as between incriminating and discharging crimes. The choice of procedural legislation of mixed model in the field of counter-terrorism procedural law should conform to the trend of the world, clarify the compartmentalization of subjects, ensure the smooth internal connection of the whole procedure, and establish a special prosecution procedure. At the same time, we insist on using criminal policy of combining punishment with leniency to guide our counter-terrorism practice, and finally realize the balance between counter-terrorism and human rights protection In a word, based on the complexity of criminal phenomena, the diversity of criminal patterns and the differences of social development patterns, considering the rigor and diversity of the theoretical research of criminal law, we should take a dynamic and open concept to study the criminal law of terrorist crime and terrorist activity crime, and adopt a multi-dimensional research approach.

Biopolitics is a concept that, much like the apparatus it refers to, has kept evolving ever since Foucault coined its modern meaning in 1976. Its usage and interpretation have especially changed with the recent publication of The Birth of Biopolitics and Society, Territory, Population, books that helped expand its perceived field of application, specifically vis-à-vis the modern governmental rationales of neo-liberalism and, by association, neo-conservatism. In a separate development, the Western dispositif (apparatus) of biopolitics has undergone a dramatic transformation as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, attacks after which, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, ‘everything changed’. My thesis takes both of these developments into account and provides a critical exploration of contemporary biopolitical US counter-terrorist measures. Emphasis is placed on a contextual juridico-political analysis that sheds more light on the complex interrelations between the relatively novel biopolitical dispositif and the classical legal dispositif of sovereignty. This is accomplished by a two-part empirical genealogical study that traces some of the pivotal judicial changes that have resulted from the counter-terrorist measures introduced in the wake of 9/11. It proposes that the PATRIOT Act, one of the primary legislative tools introduced after 9/11, is a distinctively ‘bio-legal’ document that allows for the integration of the biopolitical discourses of pre-emption, exception and contingency within the existing legal framework. I argue that this is a genuinely novel development that significantly alters the intersection of biopolitics, geopolitics and law. The second part of the empirical analysis presents a detailed interrogation of the legal disputes that involve the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and, over the course of three key legal cases, shows that, even though the logic of biopolitics has now established a foothold within the US juridical system, the classical apparatus of Sovereignty still plays a decisive role in US governance. My key arguments are preceded and supported by an extensive overview of the notion of biopolitics, both as it was first introduced and developed by Foucault over the course of five publications, and as it is currently being used by key contemporary social theorists, especially insofar as this usage relates to the changes in Western politics after 9/11. Overall, the thesis provides a profound interrogation of the epistemic status of biopolitics, and it supplements this purely theoretical analysis with a detailed overview of how biopolitics and sovereignty interact in practice through the mechanism of the law, in the context of US counter-terrorist policies after 9/11.

Although both Canada and the United Kingdom had experienced terrorism prior to the attacks that occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001, Roach has argued that the events of that day ‘produced a horrible natural experiment that allows us to compare how international institutions and different countries responded’. Arguably, the most significant international response post-9/11 was the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, which set a 90-day deadline for states to implement measures in accordance with the Resolution. Despite the fact that both Canada and the United Kingdom already had in place extensive provisions to deal with terrorism, both countries responded swiftly and their legislative responses reflect the histories and legal, political and social cultures of each country. This thesis tests the hypothesis that national security remains a bastion of national sovereignty, despite the force of international legal instruments like UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and, as such, the evolution of counter-terrorism policies in different jurisdictions is best analyzed and understood as a product of local institutional structures and cultures. To test this hypothesis, this thesis engages in comparative analyses of legal and political structures and cultures within Canada and the United Kingdom. It analyses variations in the evolution of counter-terrorism policies in the two jurisdictions and explores the domestic reasons for them. In its analysis of security certificates and bail with recognizance/investigative hearings in Canada, and detention without trial, control orders and TPIMs in the UK, this thesis reveals how domestic structures and cultures, including the legal system, the relative stability of government, local human rights culture, and geopolitical relationships all influence how counter-terrorism measures evolve.

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense))--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2006.
Thesis Advisor(s): Christopher Bellavita, "March 2006." Includes bibliographical references (p. 95-98). Also available online.

Includes bibliographical references.
This thesis explores the impact of counter terrorism measures on human rights in Kenya and Uganda. It identifies terrorism as a global problem and reviews its common features. It recognises that the human cost of terrorism has been felt in virtually every corner of the world. It analyses the nature and scope of trends of terrorist activities in Kenya and Uganda, offers possible reasons for the increase of incidents of terror and considers the challenges in combating terrorism in these countries. The thesis outlines the fundamental freedoms that are most commonly engaged in the fight against terrorism and describes states’ obligations in respect of those rights. It recognises that a significant effect of terrorist activity is the tendency to pit security against human rights. It demonstrates that legislation intended to strengthen anti terrorism efforts raise serious concerns in relation to international and domestic human rights law. The thesis investigated one central concern: How does the implementation of counter terrorism measures impact on human rights in Kenya and Uganda? To answer this question, the study sought to investigate several related questions: In the enforcement of counter terrorism measures, is it possible for governments to play by the constraints of the rule of law? Is freedom during times of emergency as important as during peacetime? Is it possible and practical to observe art 4 of the ICCPR in the war against terrorism or should a lower threshold be established?

The UN-sponsored international conventions on terrorism and organised crime deal with a specific type of criminality which spreads across national frontiers. The suppression of these crimes is possible through state cooperation in extradition and mutual legal assistance. Hence, the object of these conventions is to facilitate law enforcement cooperation. To achieve this aim, the conventions have established certain mandatory obligations in order to ensure harmony among the legal systems of states parties with a view to make them conducive to law enforcement cooperation. Harmony is needed to satisfy certain requirements of extradition and mutual legal assistance proceedings which necessitate similarity in the legal systems of the requesting and requested states. These requirements can be classified into distinct categories of conditions and procedure. Conditions refer to conditions associated with the principle of reciprocity or exchange of comparable favours, upon which the laws and treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance are based. It demands similar legal prescriptions or equivalent conceptions of justice under the laws of the requesting and requested state with respect to the act concerning which surrender or interrogation is sought. To enable the parties to satisfy conditions, the international conventions impose mandatory obligations to implement their rules concerning jurisdiction, criminalisation and fair treatment. Procedure implies the procedure of applying or executing the enforcement devices of aut dedere aut judicare and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The application of both these devices necessitates similarity in the laws of the requesting and requested states with respect to procedure of enforcement. Similarity is needed to ensure that a foreign request may not be refused due to the requested state lacking enabling procedural rules or the request not being consistent with its procedural law. To establish similarity, the conventions impose mandatory obligations to implement the mechanisms of aut dedere aut judicare and confiscation of the proceeds of crimes. This thesis critically examines the impact of these obligations on state cooperation in bringing to justice transnational offenders. The central argument of the thesis is that the mandatory obligations under the counter-terrorism and organised crime conventions are required to be implemented in accordance with and, to the extent permissible, under the national law of state parties. Accordingly, when they are translated domestically, they do not achieve a level of harmony, sufficient to facilitate the fulfilment of the requirements of extradition and mutual legal assistance, i.e. ‘double conditions’ and procedural similarity needed to enforce aut dedere aut judicare and confiscation. Resultantly, discretion rests with the requested state to grant or refuse cooperation depending upon its political and diplomatic relations with the requesting state. This contradicts the objective of facilitating law enforcement cooperation in the specific context of borderless or transnational crimes. Following this approach, state cooperation concerning transnational crimes remains as discretionary and as unregulated as cooperation in regard to ordinary crimes. This calls into question the utility of reliance on mandatory obligations as tools to facilitate law enforcement cooperation. As an alternative, some bilateral/regional treaties and domestic laws adopt the strategy of relaxing ‘double conditions’ and simplifying the procedure of applying aut dedere aut judicare and confiscation. This strategy also aims at facilitating law enforcement cooperation; however, it takes the route of regulating the requirements of extradition and mutual legal assistance rather than harmonising national justice systems to make them conducive to their demands. Given that this system carries greater potential for facilitating law enforcement cooperation, this thesis recommends that the makers of the international counter-terrorism and organised crime conventions should substitute or complement the mandatory obligations with it. Significantly, states have, by agreeing not to apply political and fiscal offence exception to extradition and interrogation proceedings involving these crimes, shown their willingness to accept this approach of facilitating law enforcement cooperation in the specific context of transnational crimes.

The article analyzes the content and meaning of the concept of international terrorism, as well as the functions of states to ensure the security and effectiveness of counter-terrorism. The study is based on the development of legal mechanisms to prevent terrorism through international law. In recent years, we have seen an international threat to state sovereignty by acts of international terrorism. The political structure and power methods of some states operate in such a way that all counteraction to international terrorism is reduced to minimization. Any civilized society cannot exist without legal support and protection of its citizens. A special task of the state in the field of international terrorism, appears to be the sustainable regulation of relations in modern society, in search of cooperation and compromise in solving global and regional problems, the effective operation of international legal acts. An analysis of doctrinal and normative sources has shown that the causes of modern terrorism lie in both the contradictions between states in defining the term "international terrorism" and the means of preventing terrorism. The findings on the nature of international terrorism suggest that legal mechanisms to counter international terrorism must be adopted in compliance with the doctrine of the rule of law and respect for the protection of citizens' rights, as well as the provisions of international law. Offers the author's answer to the research question on the legal mechanism and causes of ineffective counteraction to international terrorism. The goal of the modern state is to ensure the fullest realization of the rights of citizens against terrorism, by providing at the state and international level ways to ensure and protect them. Problems of international terrorism are addressed in both scientific and academic literature.

The article discusses the theoretical and methodological problems of studying terrorism and the system of measures to counter it. Traditional methodological approaches have remained the important ways of organizing legal knowledge; they do not fully provide a comprehensive, integrated and systematic analysis of the extremely destructive manifestations of terrorism. Taking into account the implicitness of the methodology of positivist jurisprudence, which assigns a dominant role to the legislative sphere in the prevention of offenses, including crimes, the authors substantiate a synergetic approach. The latter, defining social systems as open rather than closed formations, contributes to a significant expansion of ideas about the negative impact of many factors (political, economic, socio-cultural ones, etc.) on the formation and development of terrorist ideas, views, goals and ways of their implementation. Russian and foreign legislation also notes a multifactorial set of reasons that contribute to the spread of ideology and the transformation of terrorist views and ideas in different states. The interdisciplinarity of synergetics, which studies the phenomenon (system) under consideration, should contribute to the development of a unified scientific view of the nature and essence of terrorism, which is necessary to improve rule-making and law enforcement in matters of global counterterrorism.

The article deals with the issues of understanding the term ‘extremism’. The research results showing that in society (among both ordinary citizens and representatives of law enforcement agencies), despite the existing bias against extremism, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of this term are presented. Consideration of extremism without taking into account the meaning and context of the term itself leads to a narrow understanding of the phenomenon and its consequences. This has led to extremism being described in such terms as ‘terrorism’ and ‘radicalisation’ or ‘polarisation’, which require responses (such as counter-terrorism measures and military action) from governments to combat this form of extremism. In our opinion, this approach is not entirely correct and, in some cases, can lead to negative consequences, since the problem of extremism has rather deep roots and an understanding of the social and psychological origins of this phenomenon is required for its effective solution. An analysis of its context provides additional insight into possible solutions to combat extremism. This may prompt governments to take action to ensure a more sustainable approach to countering extremism.

This article is focused on addressing the issues of countering the extremist ideology. At present, the activation of extremist and terrorist sentiments is a real threat to the national security of the Russian Federation. In this context, it is necessary to consolidate the entire civil society in order to effectively counter these phenomena. Against this background, one of the key areas in the fight against terrorist and extremist manifestations is their prevention among students and youth. The problem of countering extremism is a challenging and relevant task, which consists in the continuous interaction and coordination of the efforts of state authorities, law enforcement agencies and various types of public organisations to combat those phenomena. This research identified and substantiated the need for a systematic understanding of the essence and content of the social nature of this problem, trends and forms of manifestation, as well as counteraction and prevention methods. For a long time, the need to combat extremism and its extreme forms of terrorist acts, including those at the international level, as representing a real threat to the national security of the Russian Federation, has been relevant for the Russian state, especially its law enforcement agencies. It is one of the main issues to combat terrorism and extremism in Russia due to the fact that it is the responsibility of the state to observe and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

Abstract An integrated microsystem to detect traces of chemical agents (μChemLab™) is being developed at Sandia for counter-terrorism and nonproliferation applications. This microsystem has two modes of operation: liquid and gas phase detection. For the gas phase detection, we are integrating these critical components: a preconcentrator for sample collection, a gas chromatographic (GC) separator, a chemically selective flexural plate wave (FPW) array mass detector, and a latching valve onto a single chip. By fabricating these components onto a single integrated system (μChemLab™ on a chip), the advantages of reduced dead volume, lower power consumption, and smaller physical size can be realized. In this paper, the development of a latching valve will be presented. The key design parameters for this latching valve are: a volumetric flow rate of 1 mL/min, a maximum hold-off pressure of 40 kPa (6 psi), a relatively low power, and a fast response time. These requirements have led to the design of a magnetically actuated latching relay diaphragm valve. Magnetic actuation is chosen because it can achieve sufficient force to effectively seal against back pressure and its power consumption is relatively low. The actuation time is rapid, and valve can latch in either an open or closed state. A corrugated parylene membrane is used to separate the working fluid from internal components of the valve. Corrugations in the parylene ensure that the diaphragm presents minimum resistance to the actuator for a relativley large deflection. Two different designs and their performance of the magnetic actuation have been evaluated. The first uses a linear magnetic drive mechanism, and the second uses a relay mechanism. Preliminary results of the valve performance indicates that the required driving voltage is about 10 volts, the measured flow rate is about 50 mL/min, and it can hold off pressure of about 5 psi (34 kPa). Latest modifications of the design show excellent performance improvements.

An expanded need for information obtainable from aerial sensor platforms is driving research and development towards both the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s) and the extensive physical redesign of existing airframes to accommodate alternative capabilities. This trend in aerial platform development requires significant time and funding and has yet to transpire into low single-system cost that can be rapidly set to use. An alternative concept of utilizing existing and unmodified airframes as sensor platforms, through the use of peripheral systems, presents an attractive solution to this problem. A particular sensor platform system (Oculus) has been designed for use upon a C-130 aircraft and, as a blueprint concept, shows considerable design flexibility for use upon additional existing military and commercial airframes. This roll-on roll-off sensor platform is a stand alone system that requires no modification to the C-130 airframe and has the capacity to incorporate multi-mission sensor capabilities which can be used for a wide variety of missions. These missions are (but not limited to) Environmental Impact Assessment, Counter Drug, Counter Terrorism, Homeland Security, Resource Surveys, Environmental Surveys, and Search and Rescue. This system (patent pending) has been developed to support a broad spectrum of the latest in remote sensor technology for missions requiring highly proficient reconnaissance capabilities. It was also designed under the criterion of mission flexibility, stability, field of view, storability, modular attachment space and provisions for expansion and upgrade. This sensor platform system provides a superior cost-effective upgrade capability to existing airframes.

In developing international humanitarian law (IHL), States have aimed in part to lay down the primary normative and operational framework pertaining to principled humanitarian action in situations of armed conflict. The possibility that certain counterterrorism measures may be instituted in a manner that intentionally or unintentionally impedes such action has been recognized by an increasingly wide array of States and entities, including the United Nations Security Council and the U.N. Secretary-General. At least two aspects of the contemporary international discourse on intersections between principled humanitarian action and counterterrorism measures warrant more sustained attention. The first concerns who is, and who ought to be, in a position to authentically and authoritatively interpret and apply IHL in this area. The second concerns the relationships between IHL and other possibly relevant regulatory frameworks, including counterterrorism mandates flowing from decisions of the U.N. Security Council. Partly in relation to those two axes of the broader international discourse, a debate has emerged regarding whether the U.N. Security Council may authorize one particular counterterrorism entity — namely, the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) — to interpret and assess compliance with IHL pertaining to humanitarian action in relation to certain counterterrorism contexts. In a new legal briefing for the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC), Dustin A. Lewis, Naz K. Modirzadeh, and Jessica S. Burniske seek to help inform that debate by raising some preliminary considerations regarding that possibility. The authors focus on the possible implications of States and other relevant actors pursuing various responses or not responding to this debate. One of the authors’ goals is to help raise awareness of this area with a focus on perspectives drawn from international law. Another is to invite a broader engagement with the question of the preservation of the humanitarian commitments laid down in IHL in a period marked by a growing number — and a deepening — of the intersections between situations of armed conflict and measures to suppress terrorism.

For at least a decade, States, humanitarian bodies, and civil-society actors have raised concerns about how certain counterterrorism measures can prevent or impede humanitarian and medical activities in armed conflicts. In 2019, the issue drew the attention of the world’s preeminent body charged with maintaining or restoring international peace and security: the United Nations Security Council. In two resolutions — Resolution 2462 (2019) and Resolution 2482 (2019) — adopted that year, the Security Council urged States to take into account the potential effects of certain counterterrorism measures on exclusively humanitarian activities, including medical activities, that are carried out by impartial humanitarian actors in a manner consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL). By implicitly recognizing that measures adopted to achieve one policy objective (countering terrorism) can impair or prevent another policy objective (safeguarding humanitarian and medical activities), the Security Council elevated taking into account the potential effects of certain counterterrorism measures on exclusively humanitarian activities to an issue implicating international peace and security. In this legal briefing, we aim to support the development of an analytical framework through which a State may seek to devise and administer a system to take into account the potential effects of counterterrorism measures on humanitarian and medical activities. Our primary intended audience includes the people involved in creating or administering a “take into account” system and in developing relevant laws and policies. Our analysis zooms in on Resolution 2462 (2019) and Resolution 2482 (2019) and focuses on grounding the framework in respect for international law, notably the U.N. Charter and IHL. In section 1, we introduce the impetus, objectives, and structure of the briefing. In our view, a thorough legal analysis of the relevant resolutions in their wider context is a crucial element to laying the conditions conducive to the development and administration of an effective “take into account” system. Further, the stakes and timeliness of the issue, the Security Council’s implicit recognition of a potential tension between measures adopted to achieve different policy objectives, and the relatively scant salient direct practice and scholarship on elements pertinent to “take into account” systems also compelled us to engage in original legal analysis, with a focus on public international law and IHL. In section 2, as a primer for readers unfamiliar with the core issues, we briefly outline humanitarian and medical activities and counterterrorism measures. Then we highlight a range of possible effects of the latter on the former. Concerning armed conflict, humanitarian activities aim primarily to provide relief to and protection for people affected by the conflict whose needs are unmet, whereas medical activities aim primarily to provide care for wounded and sick persons, including the enemy. Meanwhile, for at least several decades, States have sought to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and punish those who commit, attempt to commit, or otherwise support acts of terrorism. Under the rubric of countering terrorism, States have taken an increasingly broad and diverse array of actions at the global, regional, and national levels. A growing body of qualitative and quantitative evidence documents how certain measures designed and applied to counter terrorism can impede or prevent humanitarian and medical activities in armed conflicts. In a nutshell, counterterrorism measures may lead to diminished or complete lack of access by humanitarian and medical actors to the persons affected by an armed conflict that is also characterized as a counterterrorism context, or those measures may adversely affect the scope, amount, or quality of humanitarian and medical services provided to such persons. The diverse array of detrimental effects of certain counterterrorism measures on humanitarian and medical activities may be grouped into several cross-cutting categories, including operational, financial, security, legal, and reputational effects. In section 3, we explain some of the key legal aspects of humanitarian and medical activities and counterterrorism measures. States have developed IHL as the primary body of international law applicable to acts and omissions connected with an armed conflict. IHL lays down several rights and obligations relating to a broad spectrum of humanitarian and medical activities pertaining to armed conflicts. A violation of an applicable IHL provision related to humanitarian or medical activities may engage the international legal responsibility of a State or an individual. Meanwhile, at the international level, there is no single, comprehensive body of counterterrorism laws. However, States have developed a collection of treaties to pursue specific anti-terrorism objectives. Further, for its part, the Security Council has assumed an increasingly prominent role in countering terrorism, including by adopting decisions that U.N. Member States must accept and carry out under the U.N. Charter. Some counterterrorism measures are designed and applied in a manner that implicitly or expressly “carves out” particular safeguards — typically in the form of limited exceptions or exemptions — for certain humanitarian or medical activities or actors. Yet most counterterrorism measures do not include such safeguards. In section 4, which constitutes the bulk of our original legal analysis, we closely evaluate the two resolutions in which the Security Council urged States to take into account the effects of (certain) counterterrorism measures on humanitarian and medical activities. We set the stage by summarizing some aspects of the legal relations between Security Council acts and IHL provisions pertaining to humanitarian and medical activities. We then analyze the status, consequences, and content of several substantive elements of the resolutions and what they may entail for States seeking to counter terrorism and safeguard humanitarian and medical activities. Among the elements that we evaluate are: the Security Council’s new notion of a prohibited financial “benefit” for terrorists as it may relate to humanitarian and medical activities; the Council’s demand that States comply with IHL obligations while countering terrorism; and the constituent parts of the Council’s notion of a “take into account” system. In section 5, we set out some potential elements of an analytical framework through which a State may seek to develop and administer its “take into account” system in line with Resolution 2462 (2019) and Resolution 2482 (2019). In terms of its object and purpose, a “take into account” system may aim to secure respect for international law, notably the U.N. Charter and IHL pertaining to humanitarian and medical activities. In addition, the system may seek to safeguard humanitarian and medical activities in armed conflicts that also qualify as counterterrorism contexts. We also identify two sets of preconditions arguably necessary for a State to anticipate and address relevant potential effects through the development and execution of its “take into account” system. Finally, we suggest three sets of attributes that a “take into account” system may need to embody to achieve its aims: utilizing a State-wide approach, focusing on potential effects, and including default principles and rules to help guide implementation. In section 6, we briefly conclude. In our view, jointly pursuing the policy objectives of countering terrorism and safeguarding humanitarian and medical activities presents several opportunities, challenges, and complexities. International law does not necessarily provide ready-made answers to all of the difficult questions in this area. Yet devising and executing a “take into account” system provides a State significant opportunities to safeguard humanitarian and medical activities and counter terrorism while securing greater respect for international law.

The imperative to provide humanitarian and medical services on an urgent basis in armed conflicts is anchored in moral tenets, shared values, and international rules. States spend tens of billions of dollars each year to help implement humanitarian programs in conflicts across the world. Yet, in practice, counterterrorism objectives increasingly prevail over humanitarian concerns, often resulting in devastating effects for civilian populations in need of aid and protection in war. Not least, confusion and misapprehensions about the power and authority of States relative to the United Nations Security Council to set policy preferences and configure legal obligations contribute significantly to this trajectory. In this guide for States, we present a framework to reconfigure relations between these core commitments by assessing the counterterrorism architecture through the lens of impartial humanitarianism. We aim in particular to provide an evidence base and analytical frame for States to better grasp key legal and policy issues related to upholding respect for principled humanitarian action in connection with carrying out the Security Council’s counterterrorism decisions. We do so because the lack of knowledge regarding interpretation and implementation of counterterrorism resolutions matters for the coherence, integrity, and comprehensiveness of humanitarian policymaking and protection of the humanitarian imperative. In addition to analyzing foundational concerns and evaluating discernible behaviors and attitudes, we identify avenues that States may take to help achieve pro-humanitarian objectives. We also endeavor to help disseminate indications of, and catalyze, States’ legally relevant positions and practices on these issues. In section 1, we introduce the guide’s impetus, objectives, target audience, and structure. We also describe the methods that we relied on and articulate definitions for key terms. In section 2, we introduce key legal actors, sources of law, and the notion of international legal responsibility, as well as the relations between international and national law. Notably, Security Council resolutions require incorporation into national law in order to become effective and enforceable by internal administrative and judicial authorities. In section 3, we explain international legal rules relevant to advancing the humanitarian imperative and upholding respect for principled humanitarian action, and we sketch the corresponding roles of humanitarian policies, programs, and donor practices. International humanitarian law (IHL) seeks to ensure — for people who are not, or are no longer, actively participating in hostilities and whose needs are unmet — certain essential supplies, as well as medical care and attention for the wounded and sick. States have also developed and implemented a range of humanitarian policy frameworks to administer principled humanitarian action effectively. Further, States may rely on a number of channels to hold other international actors to account for safeguarding the humanitarian imperative. In section 4, we set out key theoretical and doctrinal elements related to accepting and carrying out the Security Council’s decisions. Decisions of the Security Council may contain (binding) obligations, (non-binding) recommendations, or a combination of the two. UN members are obliged to carry out the Council’s decisions. Member States retain considerable interpretive latitude to implement counterterrorism resolutions. With respect to advancing the humanitarian imperative, we argue that IHL should represent a legal floor for interpreting the Security Council’s decisions and recommendations. In section 5, we describe relevant conduct of the Security Council and States. Under the Resolution 1267 (1999), Resolution 1989 (2011), and Resolution 2253 (2015) line of resolutions, the Security Council has established targeted sanctions as counterterrorism measures. Under the Resolution 1373 (2001) line of resolutions, the Security Council has adopted quasi-“legislative” requirements for how States must counter terrorism in their national systems. Implementation of these sets of resolutions may adversely affect principled humanitarian action in several ways. Meanwhile, for its part, the Security Council has sought to restrict the margin of appreciation of States to determine how to implement these decisions. Yet international law does not demand that these resolutions be interpreted and implemented at the national level by elevating security rationales over policy preferences for principled humanitarian action. Indeed, not least where other fields of international law, such as IHL, may be implicated, States retain significant discretion to interpret and implement these counterterrorism decisions in a manner that advances the humanitarian imperative. States have espoused a range of views on the intersections between safeguarding principled humanitarian action and countering terrorism. Some voice robust support for such action in relation to counterterrorism contexts. A handful call for a “balancing” of the concerns. And some frame respect for the humanitarian imperative in terms of not contradicting counterterrorism objectives. In terms of measures, we identify five categories of potentially relevant national counterterrorism approaches: measures to prevent and suppress support to the people and entities involved in terrorist acts; actions to implement targeted sanctions; measures to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism; measures to prohibit or restrict terrorism-related travel; and measures that criminalize or impede medical care. Further, through a number of “control dials” that we detect, States calibrate the functional relations between respect for principled humanitarian action and countering terrorism. The bulk of the identified counterterrorism measures and related “control dials” suggests that, to date, States have by and large not prioritized advancing respect for the humanitarian imperative at the national level. Finally, in section 6, we conclude by enumerating core questions that a State may answer to help formulate and instantiate its values, policy commitments, and legal positions to secure respect for principled humanitarian action in relation to counterterrorism contexts.