The fight against terrorism has two distinct objectives. First, it implies resolving ‘political’ disputes, political in its broadest sense, comprising different areas such as the division between the rich and the poor or the dénouement of religious tensions. Or, to state it even broader: the first objective is to deal with the roots and the causes of terrorism. Secondly, the fight against terrorism means maintaining order at home, so as not to allow terrorists to reach their objective of destroying the core values in our society. Moreover, it allows the government to gain time while the international community works on the first objective. The main prospect in maintaining law and order at home is to put terrorists to trial. Thus criminal law plays an important role in the fight against terrorism.
This paper focuses exclusively on the second objective and its purpose is to survey and compare the legislation related to criminal law and terrorism in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
The following chapters are divided into the countries’ experience with terrorism and an overview on their criminal law relevant in the fight against terrorism.
A comparison of the terrorist legislations in these countries will lead to an evaluation of the different approaches and an answer to the question if terrorism should be defined at all in criminal law.
Table of Contents
I INTRODUCTION – THE ROLE OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
II GERMANY
A Germany’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International Terrorism
2 Domestic Terrorism – The Red Army Faction
B Criminal Law Related to Terrorism
1 Definition of Terrorism
2 Terrorist offences
III THE UNITED KINGDOM
A The UK’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International Terrorism
2 The Irish Republican Army
B Terrorism Provisions in UK’s Criminal Law
1 The Definition of Terrorism under UK’s Criminal Law
2 UK’s Criminal Law Offences
3 The Reversal of Burden of Proof
4 The Proscription Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000
IV CANADA
A Canada’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International terrorism
2 Domestic terrorism
B Terrorism Provisions in Canada’s Criminal Law
1 Definition of Terrorism under Canada’s Criminal Law
2 Canada’s Criminal Law Offences
3 Canada’s Listing of Terrorist Groups
4 Disclosure of Information and the Privilege of Self-Incrimination
V AUSTRALIA
A Australia’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International Terrorism
2 Domestic Terrorism
B Terrorism Provisions in Australia’s Criminal Law
1 Definition of Terrorism under Australia’s Criminal Law
2 Australia’s Criminal Law Offences
3 Reversal of Burden of Proof
4 Australia’s Proscription of Organization
VI NEW ZEALAND
A New Zealand’s Experience with Terrorism
B Terrorism Provisions in New Zealand’s Criminal Law
1 Definition of Terrorism under New Zealand’s Criminal Law
2 New Zealand’s Criminal Law Offences
3 New Zealand’s Designation of terrorist entities
VII COMPARING THE LEGISLATIONS
1 The Definitions of Terrorism
2 The Criminal Offences
3 The Proscription Schemes
VIII THE PARADOXON OF DEFINING TERRORISM
Objectives & Themes
This paper examines the role of criminal law in the fight against terrorism by surveying and comparing legislative approaches in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. The primary research goal is to evaluate whether terrorism necessitates specific criminal definitions or if it can be effectively managed through existing criminal law frameworks.
- Comparative analysis of national counter-terrorism legislation.
- Evaluation of "terrorist" definitions and their impact on legal principles.
- Examination of proscription schemes and administrative powers.
- Analysis of evidentiary burdens and procedural safeguards (e.g., burden of proof).
- Assessment of the tension between security measures and civil liberties.
Excerpt from the Book
II GERMANY
Germany went through many decades of terrorism, including attacks from international and domestic terrorist groups.
The attacks of international terrorists on German soil were not against German institutions or people but were oriented against other states: One of the most known incidents is undoubtedly the “Munich Massacre” during the Summer Olympics of 1972, where the Palestinian group “Black September” took eleven hostages from the Israeli team.
Germany also played a certain role in 9/11. Mohamed Atta and other suicide pilots were registered in Hamburg, Germany. Additionally, the first process against a person involved in 9/11 was carried out in Hamburg. The accused Motassadeq who studied with Atta at Hamburg University was convicted as an accessory to the murder of more than 3,000 people in New York and Washington and of being a member of an outlawed terrorist group.
Summary of Chapters
I INTRODUCTION – THE ROLE OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM: This chapter outlines the dual objectives of counter-terrorism (root causes vs. maintaining order) and defines the paper's focus on national criminal legislation.
II GERMANY: Provides an overview of Germany's historical experience with terrorism and examines its criminal law, which avoids a specific "terrorism" definition, treating perpetrators under standard criminal provisions.
III THE UNITED KINGDOM: Details the UK's long struggle with terrorism, particularly the IRA, and analyzes the expansive definitions and powers contained within the Terrorism Act 2000.
IV CANADA: Discusses the introduction of the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, focusing on its new statutory definition of terrorist activity and the implications of its administrative listing of terrorist groups.
V AUSTRALIA: Explores Australia's legislative response via the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002, highlighting the shift toward specific criminal offences for terrorist activities.
VI NEW ZEALAND: Analyzes the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the unique approach to defining terrorist entities and the role of the Prime Minister in the designation process.
VII COMPARING THE LEGISLATIONS: Synthesizes the findings by comparing the varying approaches to defining terrorism, the implementation of specific criminal offences, and the use of executive proscription powers.
VIII THE PARADOXON OF DEFINING TERRORISM: Reflects on the paradox of counter-terrorism legislation, arguing that defining terrorism often creates more legal and civil rights complications than the benefits it provides over regular criminal law.
Keywords
Counter-terrorism, Criminal Law, Legislation, Terrorism Act, Proscription, Burden of Proof, National Security, Civil Liberties, Comparative Law, Red Army Faction, IRA, 9/11, Legal Definition, Germany, International Terrorism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the second objective of the fight against terrorism: maintaining law and order at home through the survey and comparison of criminal law legislation in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
What are the central themes discussed in this analysis?
The analysis covers the historical context of terrorism in the selected countries, the legal definitions of terrorist acts, the creation of specific criminal offences for terrorists, and the procedural impacts like the reversal of the burden of proof.
What is the core research question?
The research evaluates different legislative approaches and addresses the fundamental question: Should terrorism be explicitly defined in criminal law, or is it better addressed through general criminal statutes?
Which scientific method is employed?
The study uses a comparative legal analysis, examining the specific legislative texts and counter-terrorism measures of five different countries to contrast their approaches and outcomes.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body is divided into country-specific chapters that detail each nation's experience with domestic and international terrorism, followed by a section that evaluates these legislations against each other.
Which keywords best describe this study?
The study is characterized by keywords such as counter-terrorism, criminal law, legislation, proscription, burden of proof, national security, and comparative law.
How does Germany differ from the other countries regarding terrorist definitions?
Germany is unique in this comparison because it does not have a specific definition of terrorism in its criminal code; instead, it treats terrorists as "normal" criminals, prosecuting them under standard provisions for murder, arson, or kidnapping.
What are the democratic concerns raised by proscription schemes?
The paper highlights concerns regarding the Separation of Powers, as these schemes often grant executive members the power to ban organizations without full court proceedings, potentially infringing on the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
- Quote paper
- Frederic Bostedt (Author), 2003, Criminal Law Legislation in the Fight against Terrorism - Comparing Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/72079
