Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T00:43:59.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Criminal justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2015

Helen Duffy
Helen Duffy
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Get access

Summary

There is cogency in the view that unless responsibility is imputed and attached to persons of flesh and blood, it rests with no-one.

(Lauterpacht, 1950)

We will direct every resource at our command … every instrument of law enforcement … to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network.

(President Bush, September 2001)

In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law.

(US Supreme Court, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld)

To the extent that acts of international terrorism constitute crimes under international – or relevant national – law, those responsible, directly or indirectly, are susceptible to international and/or domestic investigation and prosecution. States not only have the right under international law, but also the duty, to bring criminal law to bear on individuals who commit serious crimes. This corresponds to the right of victims of terrorism to have the violations of their rights investigated and those responsible held to account.

Criminal law enforcement may serve multiple goals, ranging from those embraced by traditional theories of retribution, deterrence or redress, to providing historical narratives of wrongdoing and ‘debunking the glorification of violence’. Directly and indirectly, the criminal process can contribute to the prevention of terrorism. Critically, while criminal law is only one of the international legal tools against terrorism, the expressive function of criminal trials can play a role in restoring or strengthening the rule of law. Conversely, the neglect of criminal law enforcement may itself have an expressive function in suggesting that counter-terrorism is less about ‘justice’ than it is about other goals.

Type
Chapter
Information
The ‘War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law , pp. 119 - 245
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557, 635 (2006)
Jennings, R. Y. and Watts, A. (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law (Oxford, 2008), 9th edn, pp. 534–5
Dugard, J., ‘Criminal Responsibility of States’, in Bassiouni, M. C. (ed.), International Criminal Law (New York, 1999), vol. I, 2nd edn, pp. 239–53Google Scholar
Questions Concerning the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), ICJ Judgment, 20 July 2012
Drumbl, M. A., ‘The Expressive Value of Prosecuting and Punishing Terrorists: Hamdan, the Geneva Conventions, and International Criminal Law’, 75 (2007) GWLR1165Google Scholar
du Plessis, A., ‘A Snapshot of International Criminal Justice Cooperation in the Fight against Terrorism’, in van den Herik, L. and Schrijver, N. (eds.), Counterterrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 111–14Google Scholar
Saul, B., ‘Criminality and Terrorism’, in de Frías, A. Salinas, Samuel, K. and White, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012)Google Scholar
Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, in Trials of German Major War Criminals: Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, 42 vols., Part 22 (London, 1950), p. 447Google Scholar
Kress, C. and Lattanzi, F. (eds.), The Rome Statute and Domestic Legal Orders: Volume 1 (Baden-Baden, 2000)
‘The Spanish Indictment of High-Ranking Rwandan Officials’, 6(5) (2008) Journal of International Criminal Justice1003CrossRef
Human Rights Watch, Justice for Serious Crimes before National Courts: Uganda’s International Crimes Division (New York, 2012)Google Scholar
Gil, A. G., ‘The Flaws of the Scilingo Judgment’, 3 (2005) Journal of International Criminal Justice1082)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydams, L., ‘Prosecuting Crimes Under International Law on the Basis of Universal Jurisdiction: The Experience of Belgium’, in Fischer, H., Kress, C. and Lüder, S. R. (eds.), International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law: Current Developments (Berlin, 2001), pp. 799 ffGoogle Scholar
Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 18 May 2012
Prosecutor v. Kristić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 August 2001
Prosecutor v. Plavšić, Case No. IT-00-39 & 40/1, Sentencing Judgment (Trial Chamber), 27 February 2003
Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 17 March 2009
Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Case No. ICTR-97-23, ICTR, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 4 September 1998
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04–01/06, Judgment, ICC, 14 March 2012
Harris, J., ‘President Outlines War on Terrorism, Demands Bin Laden be Turned Over’, The Washington Post, September 21, 2001
See Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, ICTY Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995
Nieto, Navia: Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, ICTY, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 5 December 2003 at paras. 97–105
Prosecutor v. Galić, IT-98-29-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 30 November 2006 at paras. 79 and 85
Bassiouni, M. C., ‘Crimes against Humanity’, in Bassouni, M. C. (ed.), International Criminal Law (New York, 1999), vol. I, 2nd edn, pp. 522 ffGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. ‘Crimes against Humanity’, in Cryer, R., Friman, H. et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (Cambridge, 2010)Google Scholar
Ratner, S. R. and Abrams, J. S., Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law (Oxford, 2010), 3rd edn, Ch. 3Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, ICTY, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 16 November 1998 at para. 439
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96–4-T Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 September 1998 at paras. 589–590
Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 1 September 2004 at para. 381
Prosecutor v. Zigiranyirazo, Case No. ICTR-01-73-T (Trial Chamber), 18 December 2008 at para. 442
Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 14 December 1998 at para. 52
Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Case No. IT-95-16, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 14 January 2000 at para. 566
Prosecutor v. Lukić and Lukić, Case No. 98-32/1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 20 July 2009 at para. 960
Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Case No. IT-05-88, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 10 June 2010 at para. 999
Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 17 January 2005 at para. 589
Robinson, D., ‘Developments in International Criminal Law: Defining “Crimes against Humanity” at the Rome Conference’, 93 (1999) AJIL43 at 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95–1-T, ICTR, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 21 May 1999, para. 123
Prosecutor v. Mrkšić, Radić and Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13-R61, ICTY (Trial Chamber), Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 3 April 1996 at para. 3
Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997
Dixon, R., ‘Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Baden-Baden, 1999), p. 124Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 26 February 2001
Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, ICTY Judgment (Trial Chamber), 3 March 2000 at para. 71, para. 207
Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR 96–13-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 16 November 2001
Situation in Darfur (Al Bashir arrest warrant case) ICC PTC-I, 4.3.2009 at para. 81
Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, ICTR (Appeals Chamber), 28 November 2007 at para. 920
Prosecutor v. Kunerac, ICTY (Appeals Chamber), 12 June 2002
Mettraux, G., ‘Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda’, 43 (2002) Harvard Journal of International Law, at 237–316Google Scholar
ICC Kenya Decision’, 23 (2010) Leiden Journal of International Law at 855–73CrossRef
Di Fillipo, M., ‘Terrorist Crimes and International Co-operation: Critical Remarks on the Definition and Inclusion of Terrorism in the Category of International Crimes’, 19 (2008) EJIL533 at 564–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, W., ‘State Policy as an Element of International Crimes’, 98 (2008) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology3Google Scholar
Schabas, W., ‘Prosecuting Dr Strangelove, Goldfinger, and the Joker at the International Criminal Court: Closing the Loopholes’, 23 (2010) Leiden Journal of International Law 4 at 847–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosecutor v. Naletilić and Martinovic, Case No. IT98–34-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 31 March 2003 at para. 235
Prosecutor v. Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 8 October 2008 at paras. 30, 313
Scharf, M., ‘Application of Treaty Based Universal Jurisdiction to Nationals of Non-Party States’, 35 (2001) New England Law Review363Google Scholar
Henckaerts, J. M. and Doswald-Beck, L., Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, A. and Naqvi, Y., International Humanitarian Law and Terrorism (Oxford, 2012), pp. 222Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Case No. IT-98-29/1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 12 December 2007 at paras. 873
Prosecutor v. Brima, Alex Tamba et al., Case No. SCSL-04–16-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 20 June 2007 at para. 666
Prosecutor v. Fofana, Moinina and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-04–14-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 August 2007 at para. 169
Prosecutor v. Sesay Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04–15-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 March 2009 at para. 112
Trials of German Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, vol. 20 (Nuremberg, 1948), p. 411
see Prosecutor v. Brima, Alex Tamba et al., Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 20 June 2007
Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 18 May 2012
Saul, B., ‘Legislating from a Radical Hague: The United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon Invents an International Crime of Transnational Terrorism’, 24(3) (2011) Leiden Journal of International Law677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, A. and Gaeta, P., Cassese’s International Criminal Law (Oxford, 2013), 3rd edn, p. 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, B., Defining Terrorism in International Law (New York, 2006)Google Scholar
Paust, J., ‘Addendum: Prosecution of Mr. bin Laden et al. for Violations of International Law and Civil Lawsuits by Various Victims’, ASIL Insights No. 77, 21 September 2001
SC Res. 1373 (2001), supra at para. 3
Pronto, A. N., ‘Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Comment’, ASIL Insights No. 77, 21 September 2001
United States v. Fawaz Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (DC Cir. 1991)
Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 15 July 1999 at para. 186
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, 22 October 2002
Lehto, M., Indirect Responsibility for Terrorism Acts: Redefinition of the Concept of Terrorism Beyond Violent Acts (Leiden, 2010), pp. 113Google Scholar
David, E., Eléments de droit pénal international – Titre II, le contenu des infractions internationales (Brussels, 1999), 8th edn, p. 362Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić, Case No. IT-04–81-A, Appeal Judgment, 28 February 2013 at para. 10
Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, Case No. IT-06–90-A, Appeal Judgment, 16 November 2012 at para. 13
Prosecutor v. Sainović et al., Case No. IT-05–87-A, Appeal Judgment, 23, January 2014 at para. 1650
See Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011
See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Case No. IT-99–36-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 3 April 2007
Goy, B., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court: A Comparison with the Ad Hoc Tribunals’ 12(1) (2012) International Criminal Law Review1–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, Kai, La Parte General de Derecho Penal Internacional (2010)
Ambos, K., ‘Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Baden-Baden, 1999)Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (hereinafter, ‘Celebici Case’) Case No. IT-96–21-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 16 November 1998 at para. 214
Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (hereinafter, ‘Celebici Appeal’), Case No. IT-96–21-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 20 February 2001 at para. 266
Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-05–14/1-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 25 June 1999
Prosecutor v. Naletelić et al., Case No. IT-98–34-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 31 March 2003 at paras. 65–69
Prosecutor v. Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 30 June 2006
Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96–13-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 27 January 2000 at para. 135
Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A (Appeals Chamber), 3 July 2002 at paras. 50-55
Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Case No. ICTR-99–52–T, Judgment, 3 December 2003
Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-447 (Appeals Chamber), 2005 at paras. 85–87
Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96–13-A, Judgement (Appeals Chamber), 16 November 2001
Prosecutor v. Omar Serushago, Case No. ICTR-98–39-S, Sentencing Judgment (Trial Chamber), 5 February 1999
Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, Case No. ICTR-97–36A-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 28 September 2011
Prosecutor v. Brima, Alex Tamba et al., Case No. SCSL-04–16-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 20 June 2007
See also Prosecutor v. Sesay, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 25 February 2009.
Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. v. Peru (Merits), Judgment, 14 March 2001, IACtHR, Series C, No. 75
See Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95–17/1-T 10, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 10 December 1998 at para. 155
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No IT-95–5/18-AR73.4, Decision on Karadžić’s Appeal of Trial Chamber decision on the alleged Holbrooke Agreement, 12 October 2009 at para. 50
Expert Opinion in Garzón v. Spain, ECHR 2011, available at:
Guatemalan courts rejected amnesty in the Rios Montt case in 2012–13
Duffy, H., ‘National Constitutional Compatibility and the International Criminal Court’, 11 (2001) Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law5Google Scholar
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002
Clapham, A., ‘Human Rights, Sovereignty and Immunity in the Recent Work of the International Court of Justice’, 14.1 (2002) INTERIGHTS Bulletin29Google Scholar
Dugard, J., ‘Immunity, Human Rights and International Crimes’, (2005)  Journal of South African Law482Google Scholar
Naqvi, Y., Impediments to Exercising Jurisdiction over International Crimes (The Hague, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, , ‘Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes and the Institut de droit international’, 4 (2006) Journal of International Criminal Justice561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, O., International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht, 1991)Google Scholar
re Demjanjuk, 612 F.Supp. 544 9, D Ohio 1985
United States v. Otto, Case 000-Mauthausen-5 (DJAWC, 10 January 1947)
Attorney-General of Israel v. Eichmann (1962), 36 ILR 277
Ntezimana, Higaniro, Mukangango and Mukabutera, decision of 8 June 2001
Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 2 WLR 272 (HL)
See Article 15(2) ICCPR. See also Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany (Appl. Nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98), Judgment, 22 March 2001
Jorgić v. Germany, ECtHR, Judgment, 12 July 2007, ECtHR. Reports 2001–II
Maier, J. B. J., Derecho Procesal Penal: Tomo I (Buenos Aires, 1996), pp. 763 ffGoogle Scholar
Genocide’, , in Fischer, H., Kreβ, C. and Lüder, S. R. (eds.), Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law: Current Developments (Berlin, 2001), pp. 843 ffGoogle Scholar
Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (Princeton, NJ, 2001)
Jorgić v. Germany case at the German Constitutional Court, 12 December 2000)
Greenwood, C., ‘International Law and the “War against Terrorism”’, 78 (2002) International Affairs301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, P., ‘Our Troops Alone Risk Prosecution’, Guardian, 15 January 2003
Robertson, G., ‘There is a Legal Way Out of This … ’, Guardian, 14 September 2001
‘International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentences’, 41 (1946) AJIL216
Creegan, E., ‘A Permanent Hybrid Court for Terrorism’, 26 (2011) American University International Law Review 2 at 37Google Scholar
Van den Wyngaert, C., The Political Offense Exception to Extradition: The Delicate Problem of Balancing the Rights of the Individual and the International Public Order (Dordrecht, 1980), pp. 148–9Google Scholar
Bossuyt, M. J., Guide to the ‘travaux préparatoires’ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dordrecht, 1987), pp. 316–18Google Scholar
ARJ v. Australia (Comm. No. 692/1996), HRC, Views of 28 July 1997
A.P. v. Italy (Comm. No. 204/1986), Decision of 2 November 1987
Bantekas, I., Nash, M. and Mackarel, S., International Criminal Law (London, 2001), p. 149Google Scholar
Dugard, J. and van den Wyngaert, C., ‘Reconciling Extradition with Human Rights’, 92 (1998) AJIL188, 190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK, Appl. No. 8139/09, ECHR, Judgment, 17 January 2012)
Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, Appl. No. 12747/87, 26 June 1992
Husayn (Abu Zubaydah v. Poland), Appl. No. 7511/13, ECtHR, Judgment, 24 July 2014
Al Nashiri v. Poland, Appl. No. 28761/11, Judgment, 24 July 2014
Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, Judgment, 10 April 2012 at paras. 200–215
Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom, [GC], Nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, Judgment, 9 July 2013
Einhorn v. France, Appl. No. 71555/01, Decision on Admissibility, 16 October 2001 at para. 27
Prost, K., ‘The Need for a Multilateral Cooperative Framework for Mutual Legal Assistance,’ in van den Herik, L. and Schrijver, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges (Cambridge, 2013)Google Scholar
Nicholls, P. B., Montgomery, C. and Knowles, J., The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters: Practice and Procedure (London, 2002)Google Scholar
Soering v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 10438/88, Judgment, ECtHR, 7 July 1989, Series A, No. 161 at para. 87
Questions of the Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, ICJ Rep. 1992, p. 3
Harris, J., ‘President Outlines War on Terrorism, Demands Bin Laden be Turned Over’, The Washington Post, September 21, 2001
Reid, T. R., ‘Blair Embraces a New Role as a Chief of War on Terror’, The Washington Post, October 9, 2001
R. (Abbasi and Another) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ. 1598 (hereinafter, ‘Abbasi’) at para. 64
‘Terror Case sets Washington and Berlin at Odds’, Christian Science Monitor, February 9, 2004
‘Terror Convictions Plummet’, Independent, 26 November 2010
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 269 (4th Cir. 2008)
Vladeck, S., ‘Terrorism Trials and the Article III Courts After Abu Ali’, 88 (2010) Texas Law Review1501Google Scholar
‘Would-Be Plane Bomber Is Sentenced to Life in Prison’, The New York Times, February 16, 2012
United States v. Abdulmutallab (2012)
Dervan, L., ‘The Surprising Lessons from Plea Bargaining in the Shadow of Terror’, 27(2)( (2010) Georgia State University Law Review239Google Scholar
Borger, J., ‘First Man Charged for 9/11 Attacks: Muslim Radicalised in London Faces Death Penalty’, Guardian, 12 December 2001
Yin, T., ‘Coercion and Terrorism Prosecutions in the Shadow of Military Detention’, 2006 Brigham Young University Law Review1255Google Scholar
Takei, C., ‘Terrorizing Justice: An Argument that Plea Bargains Struck Under the Threat of “Enemy Combatant” Detention Violate the Right to Due Process’, 47 (2006) Boston College Law Rev. 3 at 581Google Scholar
R. v. Elomar & Others [2010] NSWSC 10 at paras. 147–178
Hamdan v. United States, Case No. 11-1257, US Courts of Appeal for the District of Colombia, October 16, 2012
Safferling, C., ‘Terror and Law: German Responses to 9/11’, 4 (2006) Journal of International Criminal Justice1152–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kost, T., ‘Mounir El Motassadeq – A Missed Chance for Weltinnenpolitik?’, 8(04) (2007) German Law JournalGoogle Scholar
‘Motassadeq Convicted For Role in Sept. 11th Attacks’, The Washington Post, February 20, 2003
‘Judge Frees 9/11 Suspects in Germany. Ruling Could Undo Only Conviction’, The Washington Post, December 12, 2003
Landler, M., ‘US Report Adds Fog to 9/11 Retrial’, The New York Times, August 12, 2004
‘9/11 Suspect Could Face Reduced Charges’, The Washington Post, February 5, 2003
‘Judge Frees 9/11 Suspect in Germany’, The Washington Post, December 12, 2003
‘9/11 Terror Suspect Acquitted’, Deutsche Welle, 6 February 2004
Mounir El Motassadeq, Judgment, Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, 19 August 2005
Federal Constitutional Court, (Bundesverfassungsgericht – BverfG), decision of 10 January 2007, Reg. No. 2 BvR 2557/06
Finn, P., ‘9/11 Suspect Could Face Reduced Charges. German Judge Says he Understands Alleged Accomplice’s Claims of Unfair Trial’, The Washington Post, February 5, 2003
Tremlett, R., ‘Al-Jazeera Man Faces Terror Trial’, Guardian, 12 September 2003
Spanish Supreme Court; ‘Spanish “al-Qa’eda Fighter” Set Free’, Telegraph, 26 July 2006
‘Terror Convictions Plummet’, Telegraph, 26 November 2010, available at:
See, e.g., R. v. Ahmed (Rangzieb), R. v. Ahmed (Habib), Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 25 February 2011, [2011] EWCA Crim. 184
‘Former Cern Scientist Faces Terror Trial in France’, Guardian, 29 March 2012
Juwana, H., ‘Indonesia’s Anti Terrorism Law’, in Ramraj, V., Hor, M. et al., Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 290–309Google Scholar
International Bar Association Human Rights Institute, A Long March to Justice: A Report on Judicial Independence and Integrity in Pakistan, September 2009
Slaughter, A. M., ‘Terrorism and Justice’, Financial Times, 12 October 2003, p. 23Google Scholar
Drumbl, M. A., ‘Judging the 9/11 Terrorist Attack’, 24 (2002) HRQ323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J., ‘Speaking Law to Power: The War Against Terrorism and Human Rights’, 14 (2003) EJIL241, 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The Right Action’, The New York Times, January 1, 2001, p. A6
Ford, P., ‘Iraqi Tribunal Stirs Fierce Debate’, Christian Science Monitor, October 1, 2003
Savage, C., ‘Tribunal for Hussein Trial Criticized’, The Boston Globe, December 17, 2003
‘Blair Should Face War Crimes Trial over Iraq, says Desmond Tutu’, Independent, 2 September 2012
Hoge, Warren, ‘Annan Assails US for Seeking Peacekeeper Immunity’, International Herald Tribune, June 19, 2004
Hoge, Warren, ‘Prison Abuse Halts US Bid for Troop Immunity’, International Herald Tribune, June 24, 2004
Sands, P., ‘Our Troops Alone Risk Prosecution’, Guardian, 15 January 2003
Guariglia, F., ‘The Selection of Cases by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G. (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (Leiden, 2009), pp. 209–17Google Scholar
UNODC Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism 2009
Ashworth, A., (2006) ‘Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence’, 10 (2006) The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 4 at 241–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormack, W., ‘Inchoate Terrorism: Liberalism Clashes with Fundamentalism’, 37 (2005) Georgetown Journal of International Law1Google Scholar
R. v. Elomar & Others [2010]
Bunglawala, I., ‘Don’t Even Think about It’, Guardian, 6 December 2007
R. v. Zafar (Aitzaz) [2008]
Galli, F., ‘Developments in the Construction of Criminal Legislation – R. v. Zafar and Others’, 172(33) (2008) Justice of the Peace532–5Google Scholar
Mandala, Nelson, Larry King Live, May 16, 2000
Hizb Ul Tahrir and Others v. Germany, Appl. No. 31098/08, ECtHR, Judgment, 12 June 2012
Walter, C., Vöneky, S., Röben, V. and Schorkopf, F., Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law (Berlin, 2005), p. 613Google Scholar
Campbell, C., ‘Beyond Radicalization: Towards an Integrated Anti-Violence Rule of Law Strategy’, in de Frías, A. Salinas, Samuel, K. and White, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012), pp. 255–82 at p. 272Google Scholar
United States v. Shah, 474 F.Supp 2d 492 (SDNY 2007), 499
United States v. Farhane 634 F.2d 127 (2 Cir. 2011)
Mackintosh, K. and Duplat, P., Study of the Impact of Donor Counter-Terrorism Measures on Principled Humanitarian Action, July 2013
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) 561 US
Hedges v. Obama, 12 Civ. 331 (KBF) (2012) and opinion at:
‘Anti-Terrorism Law Struck Down by Federal Judge’, POLITICO, September 13, 2012
‘US Judge Voids Portion of Patriot Act as Illegally Vague’, LA Times, July 30, 2005, available at:
‘Why Justice is at Risk in the Babar Ahmad Extradition Case’, Guardian, 5 October 2012, available at:
Drumbl, M. A., ‘Transnational Terrorist Financing, Criminal and Civil Perspective’, (2008) German Law Journal933–44Google Scholar
Ekaratne, S. C., ‘Redundant Restriction: The UK’s Offense of Glorifying Terrorism’, 23(1) (2010) Harvard Law School Human Rights Journal205–22Google Scholar
Barendt, E., ‘Threats to Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom?’, 28 (2005) University of New South Wales Law Review895Google Scholar
see ICJ Terrorism Bulletin, No. 51, April 2011
Hassan, F., ‘Do Anti-Terrorism Act Amendments Threaten Free Speech?’, Huffington Post, November 22, 2011, available at: Google Scholar
see Yilmaz and Kiliç v. Turkey, Appl. No. 68514/01, ECtHR, Judgment, 17 July 2008
SC Res. 1373 (2001), supra
United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012)
‘Appeals Court Overturns Millennium Bomb-Plot Sentence; Calls it Too Light’, The New York Times, March 12, 2012, available at:
On sentencing guidelines in the UK see R. v. Barot, [2008] 1 Cr. App. R(S) 247(45)
R. v. Ibrahim, [2008] 4 All ER 208 concerning the London bombings
R. v. Rahman & Mohammed, [2008] 4 All ER 661 CA (Crim. Div.)
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Sabbah and Others) v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Comm. No. 334/06, 13 February 2012
Francisco Juan Larranaga v. The Philippines, Comm. No. 1421/2005, HRC, 24 July 2006 at para. 7.2
‘Terror Suspect Wants Secret Evidence Against him Revealed’, Globe and Mail, 23 August 2012
Tondini, M., ‘Beyond the Law of the Enemy: Recovering from the Failures of the Global War on Terrorism through (Criminal) Law’, in Processi Storici e Politiche di Pace/Historical Processes and Peace Politics 3(5) (2008), pp. 59–81Google Scholar
Gridin v. Russian Federation (views adopted on 20 July 2000), UN Doc. GAOR, A/55/40 (vol. II) at para. 8.3
Saidov v. Tajikistan (964/2001), ICCPR, A/59/40, vol. II (8 July 2004) 164 at paras. 6.6–7, (where state-directed media extensively described an accused as a criminal)
‘EU Evidence Exchange Warning’, The Law Society Gazette, 25 September 2008, available at:
de Frías, A. Salinas, Samuel, K. and White, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012)CrossRef
‘Informal EU Justice and Home Affairs Council, 13–14 September 2002’, Statewatch News online, September 2002
Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, 2003), 6th edn, p. 313Google Scholar
Stanbrook, I. and Stanbrook, C., Extradition: Law and Practice (Oxford, 2000), p. 20Google Scholar
Pyle, C. H., Extradition Politics and Human Rights (Philadelphia, 2001), in particular Ch. 15, pp. 197–206Google Scholar
Black, I., ‘Extradition of Terror Suspects Ruled Out. EU Will not Expose Prisoners to US Death Penalty’, Guardian, 14 September 2002
Dillon, S., ‘A Nation Challenged: The Legal Front; Spain Sets Hurdle for Extraditions’, The New York Times, November 24, 2001
Yoldi, J., ‘España advierte a EEUU de que no extraditará a miembros de AlQaeda’, El Pais, 23 November 2001
Al Delaema, Supreme Court of The Netherlands, Judgment of 5 September 2006
Benbrika (Ruling No. 20) [2008] VSC (20 March 2008)
Benbrika and Others (Ruling No. 1) [2011] VSC 76 (11 March 2011)
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04–01/06, Decision on Sentence, 10 July 2012
United States v. Khadr (2011)
Ahmed (Rangzieb), R. v. Ahmed (Habib), Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 25 February 2011, [2011] EWCA Crim. 184
‘Terror Convictions Overturned in France’, The New York Times, February 24, 2009
Rodriguez, J., Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives (New York, 2012)Google Scholar
‘US rejects Germany bid for extradition of CIA agents in el-Masri rendition’, JURIST, Saturday, September 22, 2007, available at:
‘Officials Pressed Germans on Kidnapping by CIA’, The New York Times, December 8, 2010, available at:
Resnik, J., ‘Detention, the War on Terror, and the Federal Courts,’ 110 (2010) Columbia Law Review579Google Scholar
‘Terror Case Sets Washington and Berlin at Odds’, Christian Science Monitor, February 9, 2004

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Criminal justice
  • Helen Duffy
  • Book: The ‘War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law
  • Online publication: 05 April 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028585.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Criminal justice
  • Helen Duffy
  • Book: The ‘War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law
  • Online publication: 05 April 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028585.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Criminal justice
  • Helen Duffy
  • Book: The ‘War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law
  • Online publication: 05 April 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028585.010
Available formats
×