No Cover Image

Journal article 1346 views 128 downloads

Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism

Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus Orcid Logo

Criminal Law Forum, Volume: 31, Issue: 4, Pages: 473 - 512

Swansea University Authors: Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus Orcid Logo

  • 40095.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).

    Download (366.5KB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1007/s10609-020-09405-x

Abstract

Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism requires member states to criminalise “public provocation to commit a terrorist offence”. In the U.K., the realisation of this obligation is found in the “Encouragement of terrorism” offence contained in section 1 of the Te...

Full description

Published in: Criminal Law Forum
ISSN: 1046-8374 1572-9850
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa40095
first_indexed 2018-05-11T04:34:04Z
last_indexed 2023-02-11T03:46:50Z
id cronfa40095
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2023-02-10T16:27:02.8609116</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>40095</id><entry>2018-05-10</entry><title>Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism</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><author><sid>fac9246a2aa3ba738f8b431e20e45a64</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-6211-7939</ORCID><firstname>Nuria</firstname><surname>Lorenzo-Dus</surname><name>Nuria Lorenzo-Dus</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-05-10</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism requires member states to criminalise &#x201C;public provocation to commit a terrorist offence&#x201D;. In the U.K., the realisation of this obligation is found in the &#x201C;Encouragement of terrorism&#x201D; offence contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. As well as fulfilling the U.K.&#x2019;s treaty obligation, this offence was intended to stop the spread of violent extremist ideology. Although the compatibility of this offence with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been queried, both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights have held that it complies with Article 10&#x2019;s demands. So, instead of taking Article 10 as its starting point, this article draws instead on work from the field of linguistics: namely, speech act theory (SAT). By using insights from SAT, and by examining some of the linguistic strategies that may be used to encourage acts of terrorism, the article seeks to advance the legal understanding of the concept of encouragement. In particular, the article draws out two features of encouragement that have important implications for the appropriate boundaries of the encouragement of terrorism offence - encouragement is intentional and it is performative - and argues that, as currently drafted, the offence does not reflect the nature of encouragement as an intentional activity. The article concludes by drawing out from its analysis a series of proposed amendments that together address the rights-based concerns about the offence whilst maintaining its effectiveness as a counterterrorism tool.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Criminal Law Forum</journal><volume>31</volume><journalNumber>4</journalNumber><paginationStart>473</paginationStart><paginationEnd>512</paginationEnd><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>1046-8374</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1572-9850</issnElectronic><keywords>Encouragement, terrorism, speech act theory, human rights, linguistics, counterterrorism</keywords><publishedDay>3</publishedDay><publishedMonth>10</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2020</publishedYear><publishedDate>2020-10-03</publishedDate><doi>10.1007/s10609-020-09405-x</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HRCL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2023-02-10T16:27:02.8609116</lastEdited><Created>2018-05-10T20:49:35.6560651</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><author><firstname>Nuria</firstname><surname>Lorenzo-Dus</surname><orcid>0000-0002-6211-7939</orcid><order>2</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>40095__18311__2c0829a6e85940859597cf01e1787e2f.pdf</filename><originalFilename>40095.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2020-10-05T11:32:30.1820633</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>375291</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2023-02-10T16:27:02.8609116 v2 40095 2018-05-10 Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98 0000-0002-7483-9023 Stuart Macdonald Stuart Macdonald true false fac9246a2aa3ba738f8b431e20e45a64 0000-0002-6211-7939 Nuria Lorenzo-Dus Nuria Lorenzo-Dus true false 2018-05-10 HRCL Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism requires member states to criminalise “public provocation to commit a terrorist offence”. In the U.K., the realisation of this obligation is found in the “Encouragement of terrorism” offence contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. As well as fulfilling the U.K.’s treaty obligation, this offence was intended to stop the spread of violent extremist ideology. Although the compatibility of this offence with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been queried, both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights have held that it complies with Article 10’s demands. So, instead of taking Article 10 as its starting point, this article draws instead on work from the field of linguistics: namely, speech act theory (SAT). By using insights from SAT, and by examining some of the linguistic strategies that may be used to encourage acts of terrorism, the article seeks to advance the legal understanding of the concept of encouragement. In particular, the article draws out two features of encouragement that have important implications for the appropriate boundaries of the encouragement of terrorism offence - encouragement is intentional and it is performative - and argues that, as currently drafted, the offence does not reflect the nature of encouragement as an intentional activity. The article concludes by drawing out from its analysis a series of proposed amendments that together address the rights-based concerns about the offence whilst maintaining its effectiveness as a counterterrorism tool. Journal Article Criminal Law Forum 31 4 473 512 Springer Science and Business Media LLC 1046-8374 1572-9850 Encouragement, terrorism, speech act theory, human rights, linguistics, counterterrorism 3 10 2020 2020-10-03 10.1007/s10609-020-09405-x COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University 2023-02-10T16:27:02.8609116 2018-05-10T20:49:35.6560651 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Stuart Macdonald 0000-0002-7483-9023 1 Nuria Lorenzo-Dus 0000-0002-6211-7939 2 40095__18311__2c0829a6e85940859597cf01e1787e2f.pdf 40095.pdf 2020-10-05T11:32:30.1820633 Output 375291 application/pdf Version of Record true Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY). true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
spellingShingle Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
Stuart Macdonald
Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
title_short Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
title_full Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
title_fullStr Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
title_full_unstemmed Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
title_sort Intentional and Performative Persuasion: The Linguistic Basis for Criminalizing the (Direct and Indirect) Encouragement of Terrorism
author_id_str_mv 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98
fac9246a2aa3ba738f8b431e20e45a64
author_id_fullname_str_mv 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98_***_Stuart Macdonald
fac9246a2aa3ba738f8b431e20e45a64_***_Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
author Stuart Macdonald
Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
author2 Stuart Macdonald
Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
format Journal article
container_title Criminal Law Forum
container_volume 31
container_issue 4
container_start_page 473
publishDate 2020
institution Swansea University
issn 1046-8374
1572-9850
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10609-020-09405-x
publisher Springer Science and Business Media LLC
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
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism requires member states to criminalise “public provocation to commit a terrorist offence”. In the U.K., the realisation of this obligation is found in the “Encouragement of terrorism” offence contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. As well as fulfilling the U.K.’s treaty obligation, this offence was intended to stop the spread of violent extremist ideology. Although the compatibility of this offence with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been queried, both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights have held that it complies with Article 10’s demands. So, instead of taking Article 10 as its starting point, this article draws instead on work from the field of linguistics: namely, speech act theory (SAT). By using insights from SAT, and by examining some of the linguistic strategies that may be used to encourage acts of terrorism, the article seeks to advance the legal understanding of the concept of encouragement. In particular, the article draws out two features of encouragement that have important implications for the appropriate boundaries of the encouragement of terrorism offence - encouragement is intentional and it is performative - and argues that, as currently drafted, the offence does not reflect the nature of encouragement as an intentional activity. The article concludes by drawing out from its analysis a series of proposed amendments that together address the rights-based concerns about the offence whilst maintaining its effectiveness as a counterterrorism tool.
published_date 2020-10-03T07:26:51Z
_version_ 1821389526230106112
score 11.04748

Similar Items