No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Bringing Terrorists to Justice in the Context of Armed Conflict: Interaction between International Humanitarian Law and the UN Conventions Against Terrorism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 February 2020
Abstract
The participation of foreign fighters on the side of terrorist groups has raised many questions about the legal basis for the criminal prosecution of acts of terror during armed conflicts. In cases regarding the commission of terrorist crimes with transnational elements, such as the foreign nationality of the alleged perpetrator, cooperation with other states in matters such as extradition or mutual legal assistance can be crucial. This study will analyse two regimes that may constitute a legal basis for cooperation in criminal matters against acts of terror committed during armed conflicts: (i) the rules on criminal responsibility under international humanitarian law (IHL), and (ii) the United Nations framework of anti-terrorist conventions. IHL has been seen by many as the only framework applicable to acts committed during armed conflicts. In contrast, the position adopted in this article is that IHL does not necessarily exclude the application of other regimes to acts committed during armed conflicts, which can serve as a complementary tool in international efforts for the prevention and suppression of terrorism.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2020
Footnotes
This study was supported by the scholarship FPU/2015-06775 from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport; by the research project ‘Los muros y el derecho internacional contemporáneo: implicaciones para la seguridad, la dignidad de la persona y el desarrollo sostenible (DER2015-65486-R)’ from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness; the Andalusian Research Group ‘Protección Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, Seguridad y Medio Ambiente’ (SEJ-593), both led by Professor Ana Salinas de Frías; and the research project led by Dr Marta Fernández Cabrera, ‘Análisis de las últimas reformas en materia de terrorismo: una aproximación interdisciplinar’, of the University of Málaga. This article is a revised version of the introductory paper I delivered on 13 November 2018 in Jerusalem at the 13th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law. I had the benefit of perceptive and useful comments by the participants at this event and by the anonymous reviewers of the Israel Law Review. Any errors that remain are my own.
References
1 ‘Hollande Says Paris Attacks “an Act of War” by Islamic State’, Reuters, 14 November 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-shooting-hollande/hollande-says-paris-attacks-an-act-of-war-by-islamic-state-idUSKCN0T30JG20151114.
2 For analyses of these conflicts see, among others, Koutroulis, Vaios, ‘The Fight Against the Islamic State and Jus in Bello’ (2016) 29 Leiden Journal of International Law 827CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gunaratna, Rohan, ‘Marawi: A Game Changer in Terrorism in Asia’ (2017) 9 Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses 4Google Scholar; Singh, Bilveer and Ramakrishna, Kumar, ‘Islamic State's Wilayah Philippines: Implications for Southeast Asia’ (2016) 187 RSIS CommentaryGoogle Scholar.
3 On this matter see, among others, Trapp, Kimberley N, ‘Can Non-State Actors Mount an Armed Attack?’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press 2015) 679Google Scholar; Bethlehem, Daniel, ‘Self-Defense against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors’ (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 770Google Scholar; Schrijver, Nico and van den Herik, Larissa, ‘Leiden Policy Recommendations on Counter-terrorism and International Law’ (2010) 57 Netherlands International Law Review 531Google Scholar.
4 Weber, Max, ‘Politics as a Vocation’ in Gerth, Hans Heinrich and Mills, Charles Wright (eds and trs) from Weber, Max, Essays in Sociology (Oxford University Press 1948) 77, 78Google Scholar.
5 UNSC Res 2178 (24 September 2014), UN Doc S/RES/2178, para 2.
6 See, among others, Malet, David, Foreign Fighters: Transnational Identity in Civil Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2017)Google Scholar; Johnston, Verle Bryant, Legions of Babel: The International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War (Penn State University Press 1967)Google Scholar; Flores, Marcello, ‘Foreign Fighters Involvement in National and International War: A Historical Survey’ in de Guttry, Andrea, Capone, Francesca and Paulussen, Christophe (eds), Foreign Fighters under International Law and Beyond (Springer 2016) 27Google Scholar.
7 For analyses of the European case see, for instance, Lindekilde, Lasse, Bertelsen, Preben and Stohl, Michael, ‘Who Goes, Why, and With What Effects: The Problem of Foreign Fighters from Europe’ (2016) 27 Small Wars & Insurgencies 858CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alastair Reed, Jeanine de Roy van Zuijdewijn and Edwin Bakker, ‘Pathways of Foreign Terrorist Fighters: Policy Options and Their (Un)Intended Consequences’, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, April 2015, https://www.icct.nl/download/file/ICCT-Reed-De-Roy-Van-Zuijdewijn-Bakker-Pathways-Of-Foreign-Fighters-Policy-Options-And-Their-Un-Intended-Consequences-April2015(1).pdf.
8 Colin P Clarke, ‘The Terrorist Diaspora: After the Fall of the Caliphate’, RAND Corporation, Testimony presented before the House Homeland Security Committee Task Force on Denying Terrorists Entry into the United States, 13 July 2017, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT480/RAND_CT480.pdf.
9 Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, interestingly considers that states have a legal obligation to repatriate citizens who left to fight for Daesh, if they are held by non-state actors: ‘Canada Has “a Legal Obligation” to Repatriate Citizens Who Left to Fight for ISIS, Says UN Rapporteur’, CBC, 30 October 2018, https:// www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4884043/canada-has-a-legal-obligation-to-repatriate-citizens-who-left-to-fight-for-isis-says-un-rapporteur-1.4884562.
10 ‘Trump Tells European Countries to Take Back IS Fighters’, BBC News, 17 February 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47269887.
11 Eric Schmitt, ‘Defeated in Syria, ISIS Fighters Held in Camps Still Pose a Threat’, The New York Times, 24 January 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/world/middleeast/isis-syria-militants-kurds.html.
12 Paul Sonne, Devlin Barrett and Ellen Nakashima, ‘U.S. and Britain Are Divided Over What To Do with Captured ISIS Fighters’, The Washington Post, 14 February 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-and-britain-are-divided-over-what-to-do-with-captured-isis-fighters/2018/02/14/8ad4786e-0f7f-11e8-827c-5150c6f3dc79_story.html; Nick Paton Walsh, ‘The Captured ISIS Fighters that Nobody Wants’, CNN, 12 February 2018, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/middleeast/captured-isis-fighters-nobody-wants-intl/index.html; ‘What To Do with Foreign Militants Captured in Iraq and Syria? Their Fates Greatly Vary’, The Straits Times, 23 February 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/what-to-do-with-foreign-militants-captured-in-iraq-and-syria-their-fates-greatly. In a report prepared for the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights, Dr Sharon Weill even suggests that states have the obligation to repatriate alleged jihadists of French nationality, following the obligations under art 3 of the Geneva Conventions to treat prisoners humanely: Sharon Weill, ‘Terror in Courts – French Counter-Terrorism: Administrative and Penal Avenues’, The Capstone Course on Counter-Terrorism and International Crimes, May 2018, 37, https://www.sciencespo.fr/psia/sites/sciencespo.fr.psia/files/Terror%20in%20Courts_2.pdf.
13 This issue has already been highlighted in a report presented to the European Parliament: European Parliamentary Research Service, The Return of Foreign Fighters to EU Soil: Ex-Post Evaluation (European Union 2018) 52, http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/621811/EPRS_STU(2018)621811_EN.pdf.
14 MENAFATF, ‘Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism: Mutual Evaluation Report, 9th Follow-up Report for Iraq’, 2 May 2018, http://www.menafatf.org/sites/default/files/Newsletter/Iraq%20Exit%20FUR_En.pdf.
15 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (entered into force 20 February 1977) 1035 UNTS 167.
16 United States Department of Justice, ‘Malian National Indicted for Murder of U.S. Diplomat to be Arraigned Today in Brooklyn Federal Court’, 13 March 2014, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/malian-national-indicted-murder-us-diplomat-be-arraigned-today-brooklyn-federal-court.
17 Section 5 below.
18 UNODC, ‘International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: Counter-Terrorism’, 28, http:// www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Publications/Training_Curriculum_Module3/Module3_EN.pdf. For a similar approach in the scholarship see, among others, Coco, Antonio, ‘The Mark of Cain: The Crime of Terrorism in Times of Armed Conflict as Interpreted by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in R v. Mohammed Gul’ (2013) 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice 425CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 UNODC, Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism (2009) 28.
20 Vara, Juan Santos, ‘Extraordinary Renditions: The Interstate Transfer of Terrorist Suspects without Human Rights Limits’ in Glennon, Michael J and Sur, Serge (eds), Terrorisme et droit international (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 551Google Scholar; Vervaele, John AE, ‘Extraordinary Rendition and the Security Paradigm’ (2013) 3 International Law Review 1Google Scholar; Toope, Stephen J and Cantegreil, Julien, ‘Disparitions, prisons secrètes et restitutions extraordinaires: comment perdre la “guerre contre le terrorisme”’ (2007) 10 Esprit 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duffy, Hellen, The ‘War on Terror’ and the Framework of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2015) 557CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 This article focuses on interstate cooperation, so it does not address aspects related to detention, prosecution and extradition by non-state actors; nor does it address cooperation between states and non-state actors in criminal matters, which could be the subject of an independent analysis. See, among others, Heffes, Ezequiel, ‘Detentions by Armed Opposition Groups: Towards a New Characterization of International Humanitarian Law’ (2015) 20 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murray, Daragh, ‘Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflict, and the Coherence of International Law: Searching for a Way Forward’ (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 435CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuck, David, ‘Detention by Armed Groups: Overcoming Challenges to Humanitarian Action (2011) 93 International Review of the Red Cross 759CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 UNSC Res 2178 (n 5) (emphasis added).
23 The obstacles to the definition of the crime of terrorism in international law are explained in more detail in Section 3.2 below.
24 UNSC Res 1566 (8 October 2004), UN Doc S/RES/1566, para 2, defines terrorist acts as acts ‘committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism’.
25 Martin Scheinin, ‘Back to Post-9/11 Panic? Security Council Resolution on Foreign Terrorist Fighters’, Just Security, 23 September 2014, https://www.justsecurity.org/15407/post-911-panic-security-council-resolution-foreign-terrorist-fighters-scheinin.
26 Kai Ambos, ‘Our Terrorists, Your Terrorists? The United Nations Security Council Urges States to Combat “Foreign Terrorist Fighters”, but Does Not Define “Terrorism”’, EJIL: Talk!, 2 October 2014, https://www.ejiltalk.org/our-terrorists-your-terrorists-the-united-nations-security-council-urges-states-to-combat-foreign-terrorist-fighters-but-does-not-define-terrorism.
27 Geneva Academy, ‘Foreign Fighters under International Law’, Academic Briefing No 7, October 2014, 2, https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Publications/Academy%20Briefings/Foreign%20Fighters_2015_WEB.pdf.
28 ibid 43.
29 These obligations have been recently confirmed by UNSC Res 2396 (21 December 2017), UN Doc S/RES/2396; UNSC Res 2354 (24 May 2017), UN Doc S/RES/2354.
30 UNSC Res 2178 (n 5) para 12.
31 For this concept see, among others, Feinberg, Myriam, Sovereignty in the Age of Global Terrorism: The Role of International Organizations (Brill 2016) 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Emmerson, Ben, ‘New Counter-Terrorism Measures: Continuing Challenges for Human Rights’ in Nowak, Manfred and Charbord, Anne (eds), Using Human Rights to Counter Terrorism (Edward Elgar 2018) 139Google Scholar; Hinojosa Martínez, Luis Miguel, ‘The Legislative Role of the Security Council in its Fight Against Terrorism: Legal, Political and Practical Limits’ (2008) 57 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 333CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Talmon, Stefan, ‘The Security Council as World Legislature’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 See, among others, Capone, Francesca, ‘Countering “Foreign Terrorist Fighters”: A Critical Appraisal of the Framework Established by the UN Security Council Resolutions’ (2016) 25 The Italian Yearbook of International Law 228Google Scholar; Tayler, Letta, ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighter Laws: Human Rights Rollbacks under UN Security Council Resolution 2178’ (2016) 18 International Community Law Review 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 UNSC Res 2178 (n 5) para 5.
34 ICRC, Expert Meeting, ‘The Use of Force in Armed Conflicts: Interplay between the Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement Paradigms’, November 2013, 6.
35 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3 (AP I), art 43(2).
36 Bianchi, Andrea, ‘Terrorism and Armed Conflict’ (2011) 24 Leiden Journal of International Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Gasser, Hans-Peter, ‘Acts of Terror, “Terrorism” and International Humanitarian Law’ (2002) 84 International Review of the Red Cross 547CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, ‘Report Presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference, March 29, 1919’ (1920) 14 American Journal of International Law 95, 114.
39 The Hague Rules of Air Warfare (December 1922–February 1923), https:// wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare.
40 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287 (GC IV), art 33.
41 In addition, the ICRC has prepared a list of military codes and domestic legislation which criminalise acts the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population: Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol II: Practice – Part 1 (International Committee of the Red Cross 2005) 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 609 (AP II), art 4(2)(d).
43 Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Multifaceted Criminal Notion of Terrorism in International Law’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 945CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Treaty between the United States and other Powers Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy (entered into force 24 July 1929) LNTS 796.
45 Tomuschat, Christian, ‘The Legacy of Nuremberg’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 833CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90. See, among others, Trahan, Jennifer, ‘From Kampala to New York: The Final Negotiations to Activate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the Crime of Aggression’ (2018) 18 International Criminal Law Review 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kreß, Claus, ‘On the Activation of ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression’ (2018) 16 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 ICC, Resolution of the Assembly of States Parties, ‘Activation of the Jurisdiction of the Court over the Crime of Aggression’, 14 December 2017, ICC-ASP/16/Res.5.
48 See, among others, Arnold, Roberta, The ICC as a New Instrument for Repressing Terrorism (Transnational 2004)Google Scholar; Cohen, Aviv, ‘Prosecuting Terrorists at the International Criminal Court: Reevaluating an Unused Legal Tool to Combat Terrorism’ (2012) 20 Michigan State International Law Review 219Google Scholar.
49 UNSC Res 955 (8 November 1994), UN Doc S/RES/955 (adopting the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda).
50 International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind’ (1996) II Yearbook of the International Law Commission 53.
51 UNSC Res 827 (25 May 1993), UN Doc S/RES/827 (adopting the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia).
52 ICTY, Prosecutor v Galić, Case No IT-98-29-T, Trial Chamber, 5 December 2003, [91]–[138]; ICTY, Prosecutor v Galić, Case No IT-98-29-A, Appeals Chamber, 30 November 2006.
53 Prosecutor v Galić, Trial Chamber Judgment, ibid [133].
54 Cassese (n 43) 946–47.
55 ibid 947. In this respect, the ICTY concluded that ‘primary purpose signifies the mens rea of the crime of terror. It is to be understood as excluding dolus eventualis or recklessness from the intentional state specific to terror. Thus the Prosecution is required to prove not only that the Accused accepted the likelihood that terror would result from the illegal acts – or, in other words, that he was aware of the possibility that terror would result – but that that was the result which he specifically intended. The crime of terror is a specific-intent crime’: Prosecutor v Galić, Trial Chamber Judgment (n 52) [136].
56 Goldstone, Richard J and Simpson, Janine, ‘Evaluating the Role of the International Criminal Court as a Legal Response to Terrorism’ (2003) 16 Harvard Human Rights Journal 13Google Scholar.
57 ibid. For doctrinal approaches to the definition of terrorism see, among others, Saul, Ben, ‘Attempts to Define Terrorism in International Law’ (2005) 52 Netherlands International Law Review 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Young, Reuven, ‘Defining Terrorism: The Evolution of Terrorism as a Legal Concept in International Law and Its Influence on Definitions in Domestic Legislation’ (2006) 29 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 23Google Scholar; Gillet, Matthew and Schuster, Matthias, ‘Fast-Track Justice: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Defines Terrorism’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 989CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 de Vabres, Henri Donnedieu, ‘La répression internationale du terrorisme: Les conventions de Gèneve (16 novembre 1937)’ (1938) 19 Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée 37Google Scholar; Sottile, Antoine, ‘Le Terrorisme International’ (1938) 65 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 91, 120Google Scholar; Caloyanni, Mégalos A, ‘The Proposals of M. Laval to the League of Nations for the Establishment of an International Permanent Tribunal in Criminal Matters’ (1935) 77 Transactions of the Grotius Society 77, 78Google Scholar.
59 Hmoud, Mahmoud, ‘Negotiating the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism: Major Bones of Contention’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perera, Amrith Rohan, ‘The Draft United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism’ in Saul, Ben (ed), Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism (Edward Elgar 2016) 151Google Scholar.
60 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (entered into force 4 December 1969) 704 UNTS 219 (Tokyo Convention); Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (entered into force 14 October 1971) 860 UNTS 105 (Hague Hijacking Convention); Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (entered into force 26 January 1973) 974 UNTS 177 (Montreal Convention); Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (entered into force 6 August 1989) 1589 UNTS 474; Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation (entered into force 1 July 2018), ICAO Doc 9960 (Beijing Convention); 2010 Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (entered into force 1 January 2018), ICAO Doc 9959 (Protocol to the Hague Convention); 2014 Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (not in force), ICAO Doc 10034.
61 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (entered into force 1 March 1992) 1678 UNTS 221 (Rome Convention); Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (entered into force 28 July 2010) 1678 UNTS 304; Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (entered into force 1 March 1992) 1678 UNTS 304; Protocol to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (entered into force 28 July 2010) IMO Doc LEG/CONF.15/22.
62 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (entered into force 23 May 2001) 2149 UNTS 256 (Terrorist Bombings Convention).
63 ibid art 2.
64 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (n 15).
65 ibid art 2.
66 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (entered into force 3 June 1983) 1316 UNTS 205 (Hostages Convention), art 1.
67 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (entered into force 10 April 2002) 2178 UNTS 197 (Financing of Terrorism Convention), art 2.
68 Rüdiger Wolfrum, ‘International Law of Cooperation’ (2010) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
69 Bassiouni, Mahmoud Cherif, ‘Legal Control of International Terrorism: A Policy Oriented Assessment’ (2002) 43 Harvard International Law Journal 94Google Scholar.
70 Prost, Kimberly, ‘The Need for a Multilateral Cooperative Framework for Mutual Legal Assistance’ in Van den Herik, Larissa and Schrijver, Nico (eds), Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented Legal Order (Cambridge University Press 2013) 93Google Scholar.
71 Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Martinus Nijhoff 1987) 3571Google Scholar.
72 Grutzner, Heinrich, ‘International Judicial Assistance and Cooperation in Criminal Matters’ in Bassiouni, Mahmoud Cherif and Nanda, Ved P (eds), A Treatise on International Criminal Law: Jurisdiction and Cooperation, Vol II (Charles C Thomas 1973) 189Google Scholar.
73 Torsten Stein, ‘Extradition’ (2011) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
74 Grotius, Hugo, The Rights of War and Peace (Tuck, Richard and Haakonssen, Knud (eds), Liberty Fund 2005) 1062Google Scholar.
75 ILC, ‘The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’ (2014) II Yearbook of the International Law Commission 153. See also Gilber Guillaume, ‘Terrorisme et droit international’ (1989) 215 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international de La Haye 354.
76 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31 (GC I) (emphasis added). See also Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 85 (GC II), art 50; Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135 (GC III), art 129; GC IV (n 40) art 146. It also includes the obligation to prevent and prosecute grave breaches of IHL, as well as that ‘the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Art 105 and those following the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949’.
77 La Haye, Eve, ‘Art. 50: Penal Sanctions’, in Dörmann, Knut and others (eds), Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (Cambridge University Press 2016) 1043Google Scholar.
78 Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Martinus Nijhoff 1987) 3571–73Google Scholar.
79 In this sense, during the preparatory works, the delegate for Belgium declared that ‘the relevant articles of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 – in particular Article 146 of the fourth Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War – made it obligatory on the Contracting Parties to prosecute and try any person alleged to have committed or to have ordered to be committed grave breaches of the Conventions, or, should they prefer it, to extradite such person. The purpose of the ICRC's article 78 was to specify the conditions for extradition, largely on the basis of The Hague Convention of 1970 and the Montreal Convention of 1971’: Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference, Doc CCDH/I/SR.70, 149.
80 GC I (n 76).
81 GC II (n 76).
82 GC III (n 76).
83 GC IV (n 40).
84 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT), art 31.
85 Cassese (n 43) 946.
86 ibid 956.
87 For a comprehensive study of the legal gaps in NIAC see Sivakumaran, Sandesh, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2012)Google Scholar.
88 Hague Hijacking Convention (n 60) art 7. For a general study of this clause see, among others, Claire Mitchell, Aut Dedere, Aut Judicare: The Extradite or Prosecute Clause in International Law (Graduate Institute Publications 2009).
89 Montreal Convention (n 60) art 7; Rome Convention (n 61) art 10; Hostages Convention (n 66) art 8; Terrorist Bombings Convention (n 62) art 8; Financing of Terrorism Convention (n 67) art 10.
90 Secretariat of the ILC, ‘Survey of Multilateral Instruments which May Be of Relevance for the Work of the International Law Commission on the Topic “The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Aut Dedere Aut Judicare)”’ (18 June 2010), UN Doc A/CN.4/630, 352.
91 Hostages Convention (n 66) art 8(2).
92 See, among others, Hague Hijacking Convention (n 60) art 4, Hostages Convention (n 66) art 5, Terrorist Bombings Convention (n 62) art 6.
93 Kolb, Robert, ‘The Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction over International Terrorists’ in Bianchi, Andrea (ed), Enforcing International Law Norms against Terrorism (Hart 2004) 248Google Scholar; Mills, Alex, ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’ (2014) 84 British Yearbook of International Law 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94 The principle of passive nationality or the nationality of the victim was used by the US in the Achille Lauro case to establish its jurisdiction over the crime of hostage-taking committed by a terrorist group: see Menefee, Samuel Pyeatt, ‘Piracy, Terrorism and the Insurgent Passenger: A Historical and Legal Perspective’ in Ronzitti, Natalino (ed), Maritime Terrorism and International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 1990) 43Google Scholar.
95 Montreal Convention (n 60) art 12.
96 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (n 15) art 10.
97 Terrorist Bombings Convention (n 62) art 15.
98 Financing of Terrorism Convention (n 67) arts 12, 18.
99 VCLT (n 84) art 31.
100 For a comprehensive study of the rules of interpretation of the treaties see, among others, Orakhelashvili, Alexander, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2008) 301–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The preceding paragraphs include the general obligation of assistance in criminal matters and the obligation to extradite.
101 Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (n 78) 1030.
102 VCLT (n 84) art 32. Orakhelashvili (n 100) 382–92.
103 Fourth Report drawn up by the Special Committee of the Joint Committee, 12 July 1949 (Report on Penal Sanctions in Case of Violations of the Conventions), Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol II, s B, 116, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Dipl-Conf-1949-Final_Vol-2-B.pdf.
104 UNODC (n 18). For a similar approach in the scholarship see, among others, Coco (n 18).
105 Pejic, Jelena, ‘Armed Conflict and Terrorism: There Is a (Big) Difference’ in de Frías, Ana Salinas, Samuel, Katja and White, Nigel D (eds), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford University Press 2012) 172Google Scholar.
106 ibid 185.
107 Ferdinandusse, Ward, ‘Improving Inter-State Cooperation for the National Prosecution of International Crimes: Towards a New Treaty?’ (2014) 18(15) ASIL InsightsGoogle Scholar.
108 Blakesley, Christopher L and Stigall, Dan E, ‘Non-State Armed Groups and the Role of Transnational Criminal Law during Armed Conflict’ (2015) 48 George Washington International Law Review 11Google Scholar.
109 Shany, Yuval, ‘Human Rights and Humanitarian Law as Competing Legal Paradigms for Fighting Terror’ in Ben-Naftali, Orna (ed), International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press 2011) 13Google Scholar; Montserrat Abad Castelos, ‘Terrorismo, Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Conflictos Armados Actuales’ (2009) Cursos de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz 315; O'Donnell, Daniel, ‘International Treaties against Terrorism and the Use of Terrorism during Armed Conflict and by Armed Forces’ (2006) 88 International Review of the Red Cross 853CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orakhelashvili, Alexander, ‘The Interaction between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Fragmentation, Conflict, Parallelism, or Convergence?’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 161, 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ni Aoláin, Fionnuala, ‘The No-Gaps Approach to Parallel Application in the Context of the War on Terror’ (2007) 40 Israel Law Review 563CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 CJEU, Case T-208/11, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 16 October 2014, ECLI:EU:T:2014:885. For a study of this case see, among others, Pantaleo, Luca, ‘Of Terrorists and Combatants: The Application of EU Anti-terrorist Measures to Situations of Armed Conflict in the General Court's Ruling concerning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’ (2015) 4 European Law Review 598Google Scholar.
111 CJEU, Case C-158/14, A, B, C and D v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Judgment, 14 March 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:202. For a study of this case see, among others, Pantaleo, Luca, ‘To Be or Not To Be (a Terrorist): Understanding the Interplay between EU Anti-Terrorism Legislation and International Humanitarian Law in Light of Recent EU Case Law’ (2018) 44 Revista General de Derecho Europeo 156Google Scholar.
112 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (n 110) para 56.
113 A, B, C and D v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (n 111) para 88; Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (n 110) paras 59–64. However, we should acknowledge that the CJEU draws a distinction between criminal law and sanctions under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and that in both judgments it accepts only the applicability of this second regime. However, one author considers that ‘by distinguishing it from other EU counter-terrorism instruments, the ECJ misses a chance to increase coherence in the area of EU counter-terrorism law as a whole. It would have been more appropriate for the Court to opt for a single definition of terrorist acts, regardless of whether a preventive or punitive instrument is used. The Court could have done so by concluding that despite Recital 11 of the Framework Decision, acts committed in the course of armed conflicts fall under the definition of terrorist acts both from a criminal law and a CFSP sanctions perspective. As Advocate General Sharpston observes, preventing terrorism by cutting it off from its financial resources is as important when acts are committed during armed conflicts as in other circumstances. That assessment is no less valid for measures of a criminal nature than for restrictive measures. There is no reason why Member States could consider that certain actions are sufficiently threatening to adopt preventive measures, but cannot criminalize and prosecute those actions later on’: see Wimmer, Michael, ‘Counter-Terrorism Sanctions, Non-International Armed Conflicts and Tamil Tigers: A and Others’ (2018) 55 Common Market Law Review 1573, 1587Google Scholar.
114 R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64, [17].
115 Hostages Convention (n 66) art 1.
116 Financing of Terrorism Convention (n 67) art 2.
117 Tristan Ferraro, ‘Interaction and Overlap between Counter-Terrorism Legislation and International Humanitarian Law’ in Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law, Proceedings of the Bruges Colloquium, 20–21 October 2016, 30.
118 Tokyo Convention (n 60).
119 Hague Hijacking Convention (n 60).
120 Montreal Convention (n 60).
121 Rome Convention (n 61).
122 arts 1(4), 3(2), 4(1) and 2(2) of these conventions, respectively.
123 Beijing Convention (n 60).
124 Protocol to the Hague Convention (n 60).
125 Hostages Convention (n 66) art 12 (emphasis added).
126 VCLT (n 84) art 32.
127 For a comprehensive study of the preparatory works and historical context see, among others, Verwey, Wil D, ‘The International Hostages Convention and National Liberation Movements’ (1981) 75 American Journal of International Law 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blumenau, Bernhard, The United Nations and Terrorism: Germany, Multilateralism, and Antiterrorism Efforts in the 1970s (Palgrave Macmillan 2014) 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ben Saul, ‘International Convention against the Taking of Hostages’, Note for the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, Historical Archives, 2014, http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/icath/icath_e.pdf.
128 Lambert, Joseph J, Terrorism and Hostages in International Law (Grotius 1990) 274Google Scholar.
129 VCLT (n 84) art 31.
130 ibid.
131 Orakhelashvili (n 100) 353.
132 The legal definition of ‘foreign terrorist fighter’ was analysed above in Section 2.
133 See, for example, the case of the British foreign fighters (known as ‘The Beatles’) who allegedly kidnapped and killed several American journalists. The US established its jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victims in a procedure that can lead to capital punishment. The UK has been criticised for not opposing the use of the death penalty if the two alleged Daesh members were extradited to the US: ‘Islamic State “Beatles” Duo: UK “Will Not Block Death Penalty”’, BBC News, 23 July 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44921910.
134 Financing of Terrorism Convention (n 67) art 2 (emphasis added).
135 Bassiouni, Mahmoud Cherif, ‘Methodological Options for International Legal Control of Terrorism’ (1974) 7 Akron Law Review 388Google Scholar. For a different analysis of the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in the Hostages Convention see, among others, Cassese, Antonio, International Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2003) 121Google Scholar; Drumbl, Mark A, ‘Transnational Terrorist Financing: Criminal and Civil Perspectives’ (2008) 9 German Law Journal 933CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
136 Marchuk, Iryna, ‘Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russia)’ (2017) 18 Melbourne Journal of International Law 436, 452Google Scholar.
137 ibid.
138 Kimberley Trapp, ‘Ukraine v Russia (Provisional Measures): State “Terrorism” and IHL’, EJIL: Talk!, 2 May 2017, http://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-v-russia-provisional-measures-state-terrorism-and-ihl.