منع وتحري&Oslas

Counter-Terrorism Law and Practice: An International Handbook

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
10 COUNTERING TERRORISM: NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVES Jean Paul Laborde* I. BACKGROUND In 1994 the United Nations General Assembly established that terrorism was “criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed”… “what ever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them”. 1 By defining terrorism as a crime rather than as an international security issue, the General Assembly has chosen a criminal law approach rather than a war model of fighting terrorism. 2 While the General Assembly categorized international terrorism in 1994 in terms of a criminal justice model as a serious crime, the United Nations Security Council categorized it, on 12 September 2001, in resolution 1368, “like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security”, thereby applying a security rather than a crime model to such acts. It is widely accepted that a number of countries are strongly supporting the Security Council approach while other members of the international community feel more comfortable with the General Assembly method. Nevertheless, as we will see, with the passage of its resolutions 1267 (1999), 1373 (2001), 1624 (2004) and several others, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC or just SC) has put unprecedented obligations on Member States to implement its decisions through their national criminal justice systems. Taking into account that UNSC resolutions are usually not written by international criminal law specialists, it leaves States under a heavy burden of finding their own ways to live up to their commitments under the UN Charter. We, at the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, stand readily to provide assistance to countries, upon request, for ratifying and implementing the universal legal instruments against terrorism, strengthening their national legislative base for complying with their international obligations on developing a robust international legal regime against terrorism (please refer to the Appendix). It is widely accepted that a working international legal regime against terrorism will help us to bring terrorists to justice and prevent future possible attacks. Therefore, more and more accent is put not on punishing terrorists for the acts already committed (although it does remain an extremely important function of a criminal justice system) but rather on preventing new attacks from happening. II. NEW APPROACH In one of the TPB working papers it is explained that “‘Proactive law enforcement’ is a phrase used to convey a contrast with ‘reactive law enforcement’. The proper grammatical usage may simply be “active” or “activist”, but the adjective “proactive” has become accepted in both popular and criminological writing. Pr
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

منع وتحري&Oslas

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online