BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Prosecuting Terrorist Acts: A Comparative Legal Study Across Europe

Sat, September 6, 9:30 to 10:45am, Deree | Classrooms, DC 606

Abstract

Since the 9/11 attacks, terrorist offences have continued to pose a significant threat to society. Over the years, legal definitions have evolved in response to, among others, the European Council Framework Decision. However, variations in national implementation have led to differences in how terrorist offences are defined within the EU. This raises a fundamental question: does a conviction for a terrorist offence in one country hold the same substantive meaning as in another? Such inconsistencies may have important implications for research relying on legal definitions of terrorist offences, as convictions often serve as inclusion criteria, such as in the European Database of Terrorist Offenders (EDT). Differences in national legal frameworks and the way these frameworks are applied in court may therefore affect the comparability of research populations and the validity of cross-national findings.

This study first conducts an in-depth legal analysis of the legal frameworks for the prosecution of terrorism, after which we examine the actual application in concrete terrorism cases in the EDT-countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany. In doing so, we specifically focus on two common types of terrorist offences, participation in a terrorist organisation and the preparation of a terrorist offence. By examining how these offences are being dealt with in the respective countries, this study aims to provide insights into the application of EU counterterrorism legislation, identifying potential areas for harmonisation and explore implications for scientific research. The findings indicate similarities in the conviction of preparation offences, suggesting a degree of harmonisation in EU member states. However, legal interpretations of participation in a terrorist organisation remain more fragmented, particularly regarding the requirement of formal integration into such an organisation. This difference highlights the need for careful consideration of legal variations when using convictions as inclusion criteria in cross-jurisdictional terrorism research.

Authors