Criminal, Law, UN security 

Many societies instinctively and quickly reach for the criminal law as a response to terrorism. T e first part of this chapter will explore the many dangers of relying on new and re-enforced criminal laws as the main response to terrorism. In the aftermath of 9/11, UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) encouraged nations to enact new laws against terrorism without offering any guidance about how terrorism should be defined. T e result was extremely broad definitions of terrorism that attempt to respond to the many vulnerabilities of modern society, but also blur the boundaries between terrorism and illegal, but non-violent, forms of dissent. These dangers have been aggravated by Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005), which calls on states to prohibit speech that incites terrorism. Terrorism offences that require only acts of material support, financing, membership, participation or association in listed or broadly defined terrorist groups strain traditional criminal law understandings of the need to prove criminal acts and fault beyond a reasonable doubt before applying society’s strongest sanction. Terrorist trials, featuring multiple counts and multiple accused, evidence relating to the politics and religion of the accused, frequent applications to close courts and to order non-disclosure of secret intelligence and the use of anonymous witnesses produce a danger of wrongful convictions. In short, there are many risks in using the criminal law
to respond to terrorism.  

31 p.; 28 cm