This article is written by Sakib Shergul Pathan, of 4th Semester of K.L.E Society’s Law College, Bengaluru, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Terrorism has become the systematic weapon of a war that knows no borders or seldom has a face.
ABSTRACT:
Violence used to spread fear and further political, religious, or ideological goals is what defines terrorism. With incidences reported in nations all across the world, it knows no borders. Separatism, religious extremism, and political grievances are just a few examples of the many different reasons people commit acts of terrorism. The outcome is a wide diversity of terrorist organizations, each with its own distinctive operating style.
Terrorism has serious repercussions that not only affect the targeted countries but also the entire world. The crime of terrorism has been a recurring and destructive problem in several nations, instilling fear and instability in society everywhere. Countries have used a variety of tactics to combat terrorism, including legislation, agreements for the sharing of intelligence, and stepped-up security. Additionally, cooperation on a global scale through institutions like the United Nations and Interpol has aided in the coordination and exchange of information in the fight against transnational terrorism.
Keywords:
Terrorism, Crime, Transnational terrorism, Extremism, Ideologies, Radicalization, International organizations, Treaties, International agreements, bombing, landmark cases.
INTRODUCTION:
Terrorism is a heinous crime that has plagued countries worldwide, causing devastation and loss of innocent lives. Its impact transcends borders, manifesting in various forms across different nations. In some countries, extremist ideologies fuel terrorism, while in others, political, religious, or social unrest acts as a breeding ground for radicalization[1]. Governments and communities struggle to combat this menace, employing intelligence, security measures, and counter-terrorism policies. The consequences of terrorism are far-reaching, disrupting economies, sowing fear, and straining international relations[2]. Terrorism can also fuel social radicalization and worsen already-existing political tensions.
Since it poses a threat to world peace, public safety, and national security, terrorism is regarded as a serious crime in many nations[3]. To eradicate terrorism, these countries have put in place rigorous legal frameworks that allow for the prosecution of anybody engaged in the planning, financing, or carrying out of terrorist actions[4]. Due to the widespread condemnation of terrorism, nations have collaborated together to combat this global issue through treaties and other international agreements. In order to prevent and combat terrorism, nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, India, Australia, and a large number of others have strict anti-terrorist legislation and collaborate closely with international organizations like the United Nations. Global cooperation is vital in addressing this transnational threat, fostering peace, and promoting understanding among diverse cultures to eliminate the roots of terrorism.
OBJECTIVES:
This article examines the causes of terrorism, its effects on the world, and the steps nations have taken to prevent it. Therefore, this article focuses on:
- Legal definitions of terrorism in various countries and variations in their legal frameworks to combat terrorism.
- Measures taken by countries to counter radicalization.
- Case studies of high-profile terrorist incidents in different countries, highlighting the responses and outcomes.
- Propose recommendations for improved international collaboration in combating terrorism and mitigating its impact on affected countries.
TERRORISM AS CRIME:
Terrorism is a reprehensible crime that jeopardizes global peace and stability. Terrorism poses significant threats to national and global security, as it can destabilize governments, create economic losses, and escalate conflicts[5]. The perpetrators, known as terrorists, deploy various means, including bombings, kidnappings, and shootings, to spread terror and disrupt societal harmony. The outcome is a wide diversity of terrorist organizations, each with its own distinctive operating style. The emergence of extremist ideologies and the ease of communication and recruitment through the internet have facilitated its growth, transcended borders and affecting nations worldwide[6].
TERRORISM IN UNITED STATES:
Terrorism has become a serious threat to national security in the United States, emphasizing the necessity for a strong judicial system to properly resist this danger. The manifestation of terrorism within a country’s boundaries has grown, and it is no longer just limited to battles elsewhere.
The United States Code[7] defines terrorism as acts “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy through intimidation, or affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” This broad definition encompasses both domestic and international acts of terror, aiming to maintain a balance between preserving civil liberties and protecting national security.
The USA PATRIOT Act[8], passed in immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, increased government surveillance authority and allowed law enforcement to track and look into potential terrorists. However, discussions about finding the ideal balance between security and privacy have been sparked by worries about potential violations of civil liberties. The legal system is always changing to address new dangers while preserving individual rights.
Over the years, several landmark cases have shaped the legal landscape surrounding terrorism as a crime in the USA. Some of them are as following:
- (1994)[9]:
The prosecution of terrorism in the USA underwent an evolution as a result of this case. A well-known extremist cleric named Omar Abdel-Rahman was found guilty of seditious conspiracy and involvement in a plot to attack a number of New York City monuments. The judgment established a precedent for prosecuting those responsible for terrorist plots under federal conspiracy and other laws.
- United States v. Padilla (2006)[10]:
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was detained and arrested in this case on suspicion of planning a “dirty bomb” attack. The court’s decision made it clear that the government had the right to hold Americans on American territory as enemy combatants. Padilla was eventually moved into civilian detention and put on trial under the criminal justice system.
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)[11]:
The material support statute, which makes funding foreign terrorist organizations illegal, was the subject of this seminal case. The court affirmed the government’s right to pursue criminal charges against anyone who give “material support” to designated terrorist organizations by finding that the Act does not infringe on First Amendment rights.
- United States v. Tsarnaev (2015)[12]:
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombing’s perpetrators, was involved in this case. On several counts, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction and maliciously destroying property that caused death, Tsarnaev was found guilty. The trial demonstrated the success of federal laws in bringing terrorism cases to trial and resulting in the application of the death penalty.
The legal response to terrorism in the USA has changed dramatically over time, influenced by significant case law that has established precedents and defined the limits of the law. These situations highlight the precarious balance between preserving personal freedoms and national security. The nation’s judicial system will surely continue to adjust and develop in order to face the problems posed by this crime as long as terrorism remains a global concern.
TERRORISM IN UNITED KINGDOM:
Over the years, the UK has experienced several devastating terrorist attacks, leading to substantial loss of life and widespread fear among its citizens. The UK has a long history of dealing with terrorism, with numerous extremist groups using violence to spread their ideology. Organizations like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) planned several assaults during the 1970s and 1980s, with a primary focus on the Northern Ireland conflict. In response to the threat’s evolution, the UK had to contend with a shift from local to international terrorism as organizations like al-Qaeda and, later, the Islamic State (ISIS), emerged as major threats[13].
The Terrorism Act 2000[14] serves as the cornerstone of UK counter-terrorism legislation. It defines terrorism as the use or threat of action designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of it for advancing political, ideological, or religious causes[15]. The act encompasses a broad range of activities, including violence, serious damage to property, and creating serious risk to public health and safety.
The UK government passed a number of laws and created a thorough legal system to effectively combat terrorism in response to the growing threat. Authorities were given more latitude to look into and prosecute crimes related to terrorism thanks to the Terrorism Act of 2000 and its later revisions[16]. This law permits, among other things, the prolonged imprisonment of suspects without charge, electronic monitoring, and asset freezing.
The Prevent program, created to address the underlying causes of radicalization and extremism, is another component of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy. Prevent seeks to identify those who run the danger of becoming involved in terrorism and offers assistance to steer them away from the path of violence[17]. Despite its best intentions, the program has come under fire for worries about civil liberties violations and potential stigmatization.
Terrorism as a crime in the United Kingdom is governed by robust legislation and a significant body of case laws that have evolved over time.
- R v. Gul[18]:
In this landmark case, the House of Lords confirmed that it is not necessary to establish a connection between an accused’s actions and a specific terrorist group for a terrorism-related conviction. The court upheld that an individual can be charged with terrorism offenses even if they act independently, as long as their actions fall within the definition provided by the Terrorism Act 2000.
- R v. Mohammed[19]:
This case dealt with the issue of glorifying terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. The court clarified that merely expressing opinions, however offensive or controversial, does not constitute a terrorism offense. However, if such expression encourages or glorifies terrorism, criminal liability may arise.
- R v. Miranda[20]:
In this case, the court considered the tension between national security and freedom of the press. The court upheld the legality of detaining David Miranda, a journalist’s partner, under the Terrorism Act 2000 while in transit at Heathrow Airport. The court emphasized the importance of protecting national security interests, even when dealing with journalistic materials.
The cases mentioned above demonstrate the difficulties and complications involved in pursuing crimes related to terrorism while also emphasizing how crucial it is to protect both individual liberty and national security. It is crucial to strike a careful balance between preserving public safety and protecting the rule of law as the UK continues to face the constantly changing terrorist threats.
TERRORISM IN INDIA:
Terrorism is a grave concern for countries around the world, and India is no exception. India has experienced its fair share of terrorism, which poses a significant threat to national security, public safety, and social cohesion. The multifaceted nature of terrorism makes it challenging to address comprehensively. In India, various terrorist organizations, both domestic and international, have carried out attacks, resulting in loss of lives and widespread fear. Acts of terrorism, such as bombings, shootings, and kidnappings, aim to create a sense of fear and instability in the society[21].
The rise of terrorism in India is influenced by a number of factors. Some of the main causes include socioeconomic inequality, religious extremism, interregional disputes, and cross-border infiltration. The recruitment of weak people into terrorist organizations has been facilitated by the marginalization of underprivileged communities and the absence of work possibilities in some areas[22]. Furthermore, other parties with personal objectives may take advantage of these concerns.
The Indian government has put in place a number of steps to tackle terrorism and deal with its underlying roots. Some of the tactics used to stop terrorist operations involve strengthening law enforcement and intelligence agencies, creating specialized counter terrorism teams, and improving border security.
In order to fight terrorism and improve its national security, India has put in place a number of legislative measures. One of the most important pieces of legislation was the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act[23] (UAPA), which was passed in 1967 and has since undergone multiple amendments to increase its effectiveness. In accordance with UAPA’s regulations, authorities may designate a group as a terrorist organization and take preventive measures against those who support terrorism[24].
The Prevention of Terrorism Act[25] (POTA), which was introduced in 2002, sought to give security personnel more authority in responding to terrorist threats. It was, however, repealed in 2004 on worries about potential abuse and human rights breaches. Then, the government added several of POTA’s sections to UAPA.
Additionally, India has improved its legal resources to more successfully punish terrorists and their supporters by amending the Indian Penal Code[26], the Code of Criminal Procedure[27], and other pertinent statutes.
India has also worked with other international organizations and countries to create a coordinated strategy for combatting terrorism. India has shown its commitment to combating terrorism on a global level by taking part in international initiatives like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee.
India’s legal response to terrorism has evolved significantly over the years, with a series of landmark case laws shaping the way terrorist activities are addressed within the country’s legal framework.
- Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994)[28]:
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987[29] (TADA). The court recognized terrorism as an exceptional threat to the nation’s security, justifying the need for stringent laws to combat it. However, TADA was later repealed due to concerns about its misuse.
- State of Maharashtra vs. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (2012)[30]:
This case pertains to the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, where Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, was the sole surviving attacker. The court convicted and sentenced him to death, emphasizing the severity of the crime and sending a strong message against terrorism.
- Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam (2011)[31]:
In this case, the Supreme Court laid down essential criteria for establishing membership in a terrorist organization. The court held that mere membership in a banned organization does not automatically lead to a conviction for terrorism unless the prosecution proves the accused’s involvement in terrorist activities.
- National Investigation Agency vs. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur (2014)[32]:
This case shed light on the complexities of investigating terrorist attacks involving extremist groups. The case demonstrated the significance of proper investigation techniques, adherence to rule of law, and ensuring the prosecution of all individuals responsible for terrorist acts.
Terrorism remains a significant challenge for India, and the legal system plays a pivotal role in addressing this menace. The case laws mentioned above illustrate the judicial approach in dealing with terrorism-related cases, ensuring a balance between national security and individual rights. As India continues to strengthen its legal response to terrorism, it is imperative to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights while combating this grave threat.
CONCLUSION:
Terrorism continues to be a grave and complex criminal threat, affecting nations worldwide, including the USA, UK, India, and many others. The global nature of this menace requires collective efforts and international cooperation to combat its root causes and dismantle terrorist networks. Throughout this article, we have explored the different dimensions of terrorism as a crime in various countries. The analysis revealed that each nation faces unique challenges, from domestic radicalization to transnational terrorist movements.
In the USA, counterterrorism efforts have evolved significantly since the devastating events of 9/11, with increased intelligence sharing and enhanced security measures. Nonetheless, the ever-changing tactics of terrorists necessitate constant vigilance and adaptive strategies.
The UK has also faced terrorist threats, particularly with homegrown extremism, leading to innovative counter-radicalization initiatives and community-based interventions. The challenge lies in striking a balance between security measures and preserving civil liberties.
India has grappled with terrorism on its soil for decades, battling insurgency in regions like Jammu and Kashmir and responding to transnational threats. The country’s approach has been multifaceted, combining security operations, intelligence coordination, and socio-economic development in affected areas.
Although these nations have achieved tremendous progress in combating terrorism, the problem still exists. Because of how interrelated the world’s terrorist organizations are, it is essential to coordinate intelligence-sharing, law enforcement collaboration, and strategic intervention measures.
It takes a multifaceted strategy to combat terrorism as a crime, including law enforcement as well as diplomatic, economic, and social measures. It’s crucial to combat radicalization and advance inclusivity in order to stop the spread of extremist ideology.
Additionally, international cooperation is crucial for locating and apprehending terrorists who take advantage of cross-border weaknesses. The fight against international terrorism cannot be won without information sharing, collaborative training exercises, and legal collaboration.
In conclusion, terrorism as a crime continues to pose significant threats worldwide. Only through sustained dedication and collective action can nations effectively mitigate this menace and strive towards a safer and more secure world for all.
[1] Treverton, Gregory F., Carl Matthies, Karla J. Cunningham, Jeremiah Goulka, Greg Ridgeway, and Anny Wong. “Organized Crime and Terrorism.” In Film Piracy, Organized Crime, and Terrorism, 11–26. RAND Corporation, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg742mpa.8.
[2] Young, Robert. “REVOLUTIONARY TERRORISM, CRIME AND MORALITY.” Social Theory and Practice 4, no. 3 (1977): 287–302. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23557727.
[3] Ibid
[4] Price, Eric. “Literature on the Financing of Terrorism.” Perspectives on Terrorism 7, no. 4 (2013): 112–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26296986.
[5] Garoupa, Nuno, Jonathan Klick, and Francesco Parisi. “A law and economics perspective on terrorism.” Public Choice 128 (2006): 147-168.
[6] Wojciechowski, Sebastian. “Reasons of Contemporary Terrorism.: An Analysis of Main Determinants.” In Radicalism and Terrorism in the 21st Century: Implications for Security, edited by Anna Sroka, Fanny Castro-Rial Garrone, and Rubén Darío Torres Kumbrián, 49–70. Peter Lang AG, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4bgx.6.
[7] U.S.C. (United States)
[8] The USA PATRIOT Act, 2001 (United States)
[9] United States v. Rahman, 854F. Supp. 254 (1994, US District Court for Southern District of New York)
[10] United States v. Padilla, (2006, US District Court, S.D Florida, Miami Div)
[11] Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010, Supreme Court of United States)
[12] United States v. Tsarnaev, 968F. 3d 24, (2015, Supreme Court of United States)
[13] Rehman, Javaid. “Islam, ‘War on Terror’ and the Future of Muslim Minorities in the United Kingdom: Dilemmas of Multiculturalism in the Aftermath of the London Bombings.” Human Rights Quarterly 29, no. 4 (2007): 831–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20072829.
[14] The Terrorism Act, 2000 (United Kingdom)
[15] Berry, Adrian. “Terrorism in the United Kingdom: The Government Attack on Civil Liberties and Minority Communities.” Socialist Lawyer, no. 33 (2001): 26–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42949100.
[16] Ibid
[17] Honeywood, Christian A. “Britain’s Approach to Balancing Counter-Terrorism Laws with Human Rights.” Journal of Strategic Security 9, no. 3 (2016): 28–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26473337.
[18] R v. Gul, UKSC 64 (2013, House of Lords)
[19] R v. Mohammed, EWCA Crim 2332, (2007, Royal Court of Justice Strand, London)
[20] R v. Miranda, EWCA Civ 6, (2017, The England & Wales Court of Appeal)
[21] SRIVASTAVA, DEVYANI. “TERRORISM & ARMED VIOLENCE IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF EVENTS IN 2008.” Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep09368.
[22] Kaura, Vinay. “India’s Counter-Terrorism Policy against Jihadist Terror: Challenges and Prospects.” Connections 16, no. 4 (2017): 51–67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26867926.
[23] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
[24] Kamath, P. M. “INDIA’S WAR AGAINST INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IN THE 21st CENTURY: ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND EVOLVING A STRATEGY.” India Quarterly 58, no. 2 (2002): 135–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45073497.
[25] The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2004
[26] Indian Penal Code, 1960
[27] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[28] Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC 569
[29] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
[30] State of Maharashtra vs. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab, (2012) 9 SCC 1
[31] Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377
[32] National Investigation Agency vs. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, (2014) 1 SCC 258
0 Comments