No Cover Image

Book chapter 1767 views 345 downloads

Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law

Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo

Cyber War, Pages: 57 - 75

Swansea University Author: Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo

DOI (Published version): 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005

Abstract

Governments are increasingly concerned with the threat of cyberterrorism. Many jurisdictions – including the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – have expanded their statutory definitions of terrorism to also encompass cyberattacks which do not result in violence to people or property but which d...

Full description

Published in: Cyber War
ISBN: 9780198717492
Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 2015
Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa16648
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2014-07-02T01:30:02Z
last_indexed 2021-01-13T03:29:47Z
id cronfa16648
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2021-01-12T15:35:27.5865830</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>16648</id><entry>2013-12-17</entry><title>Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-7483-9023</ORCID><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Macdonald</surname><name>Stuart Macdonald</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2013-12-17</date><deptcode>LAWD</deptcode><abstract>Governments are increasingly concerned with the threat of cyberterrorism. Many jurisdictions &#x2013; including the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand &#x2013; have expanded their statutory definitions of terrorism to also encompass cyberattacks which do not result in violence to people or property but which do seriously interfere with, or cause serious disruption to, electronic systems. The effect is to make available in such cases not only the full raft of terrorism-related investigative, procedural and sentencing provisions, but also all of the special pre-inchoate &#x201C;precursor&#x201D; terrorism offences. Whilst this may accord with these countries&#x2019; insistence that terrorism should be met with a criminal justice response, and that prosecution should be the preferred method of disrupting terrorist activity, it also poses challenges for theories of criminalisation.This chapter examines the UK's raft of precursor offences using the concept of enemy criminal law. Enemy criminal law is directed against a certain class of potentially dangerous offenders, imposing disproportionate sanctions and curtailing procedural rights in order to prevent future harm. The chapter warns of the danger that enemy criminal law may seep into and contaminate our ordinary criminal law. Moreover, enemy criminal law has the potential to undermine the moral authority and fairness of the criminal law, the very reasons why many common law jurisdictions insist on criminal justice responses to terrorism in the first place.</abstract><type>Book chapter</type><journal>Cyber War</journal><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart>57</paginationStart><paginationEnd>75</paginationEnd><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><placeOfPublication>Oxford</placeOfPublication><isbnPrint>9780198717492</isbnPrint><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Cyberterrorism, counterterrorism, enemy criminal law</keywords><publishedDay>1</publishedDay><publishedMonth>3</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2015</publishedYear><publishedDate>2015-03-01</publishedDate><doi>10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005</doi><url>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Law</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>LAWD</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2021-01-12T15:35:27.5865830</lastEdited><Created>2013-12-17T10:34:06.6195166</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Macdonald</surname><orcid>0000-0002-7483-9023</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0016648-13062019095622.pdf</filename><originalFilename>CyberterrorismandEnemyCriminalLaw(final).pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2019-06-13T09:56:22.1970000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>456505</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2019-06-12T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>false</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2021-01-12T15:35:27.5865830 v2 16648 2013-12-17 Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98 0000-0002-7483-9023 Stuart Macdonald Stuart Macdonald true false 2013-12-17 LAWD Governments are increasingly concerned with the threat of cyberterrorism. Many jurisdictions – including the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – have expanded their statutory definitions of terrorism to also encompass cyberattacks which do not result in violence to people or property but which do seriously interfere with, or cause serious disruption to, electronic systems. The effect is to make available in such cases not only the full raft of terrorism-related investigative, procedural and sentencing provisions, but also all of the special pre-inchoate “precursor” terrorism offences. Whilst this may accord with these countries’ insistence that terrorism should be met with a criminal justice response, and that prosecution should be the preferred method of disrupting terrorist activity, it also poses challenges for theories of criminalisation.This chapter examines the UK's raft of precursor offences using the concept of enemy criminal law. Enemy criminal law is directed against a certain class of potentially dangerous offenders, imposing disproportionate sanctions and curtailing procedural rights in order to prevent future harm. The chapter warns of the danger that enemy criminal law may seep into and contaminate our ordinary criminal law. Moreover, enemy criminal law has the potential to undermine the moral authority and fairness of the criminal law, the very reasons why many common law jurisdictions insist on criminal justice responses to terrorism in the first place. Book chapter Cyber War 57 75 Oxford University Press Oxford 9780198717492 Cyberterrorism, counterterrorism, enemy criminal law 1 3 2015 2015-03-01 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005 COLLEGE NANME Law COLLEGE CODE LAWD Swansea University 2021-01-12T15:35:27.5865830 2013-12-17T10:34:06.6195166 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Stuart Macdonald 0000-0002-7483-9023 1 0016648-13062019095622.pdf CyberterrorismandEnemyCriminalLaw(final).pdf 2019-06-13T09:56:22.1970000 Output 456505 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true 2019-06-12T00:00:00.0000000 false eng
title Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
spellingShingle Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
Stuart Macdonald
title_short Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
title_full Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
title_fullStr Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
title_full_unstemmed Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
title_sort Cyberterrorism and Enemy Criminal Law
author_id_str_mv 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98
author_id_fullname_str_mv 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98_***_Stuart Macdonald
author Stuart Macdonald
author2 Stuart Macdonald
format Book chapter
container_title Cyber War
container_start_page 57
publishDate 2015
institution Swansea University
isbn 9780198717492
doi_str_mv 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005
publisher Oxford University Press
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717492.003.0005
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description Governments are increasingly concerned with the threat of cyberterrorism. Many jurisdictions – including the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – have expanded their statutory definitions of terrorism to also encompass cyberattacks which do not result in violence to people or property but which do seriously interfere with, or cause serious disruption to, electronic systems. The effect is to make available in such cases not only the full raft of terrorism-related investigative, procedural and sentencing provisions, but also all of the special pre-inchoate “precursor” terrorism offences. Whilst this may accord with these countries’ insistence that terrorism should be met with a criminal justice response, and that prosecution should be the preferred method of disrupting terrorist activity, it also poses challenges for theories of criminalisation.This chapter examines the UK's raft of precursor offences using the concept of enemy criminal law. Enemy criminal law is directed against a certain class of potentially dangerous offenders, imposing disproportionate sanctions and curtailing procedural rights in order to prevent future harm. The chapter warns of the danger that enemy criminal law may seep into and contaminate our ordinary criminal law. Moreover, enemy criminal law has the potential to undermine the moral authority and fairness of the criminal law, the very reasons why many common law jurisdictions insist on criminal justice responses to terrorism in the first place.
published_date 2015-03-01T03:19:03Z
_version_ 1763750490243334144
score 11.037581

Similar Items