Book chapter 1151 views 162 downloads
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption?
Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror, Pages: 125 - 142
Swansea University Author: Stuart Macdonald
-
PDF | Accepted Manuscript
Download (239.01KB)
Abstract
In furtherance of its commitment to prosecuting suspected terrorists, the UK has enacted a large number of terrorism precursor offences. In this chapter we evaluate this use of the criminal sanction and suggest that there is a need for greater legislative restraint. We develop this argument by first...
Published in: | Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror |
---|---|
ISBN: | 9781138543775 |
Published: |
Abingdon
Routledge
2018
|
Online Access: |
https://www.routledge.com/Beyond-Human-Rights-and-the-War-on-Terror/Juss/p/book/9781138543775 |
URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa45967 |
first_indexed |
2018-11-19T14:28:28Z |
---|---|
last_indexed |
2019-02-01T20:03:29Z |
id |
cronfa45967 |
recordtype |
SURis |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-02-01T16:26:19.4450624</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>45967</id><entry>2018-11-19</entry><title>Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption?</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>2018-11-19</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>In furtherance of its commitment to prosecuting suspected terrorists, the UK has enacted a large number of terrorism precursor offences. In this chapter we evaluate this use of the criminal sanction and suggest that there is a need for greater legislative restraint. We develop this argument by first examining three non-criminal methods of disrupting terrorist activity: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs); asset-freezing; and, proscription. Whilst each of these powers has been found to be necessary, we outline four sets of concerns about them that explain why they are regarded as less desirable in principle than prosecution. We then turn to terrorism precursor offences and, whilst agreeing that they are needed for the sake of prevention, argue that the wide range of such offences currently in force in the UK go too far in pursuit of this objective. As a result, the same concerns that apply to the non-criminal methods of disruption apply also to terrorism precursor offences. We argue that this is counter-productive, for it risks undermining the very features of the criminal law that give it its unique moral authority and legitimacy in the first place.</abstract><type>Book chapter</type><journal>Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror</journal><paginationStart>125</paginationStart><paginationEnd>142</paginationEnd><publisher>Routledge</publisher><placeOfPublication>Abingdon</placeOfPublication><isbnPrint>9781138543775</isbnPrint><keywords>Criminal law, counterterrorism, human rights, security</keywords><publishedDay>2</publishedDay><publishedMonth>11</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2018</publishedYear><publishedDate>2018-11-02</publishedDate><doi/><url>https://www.routledge.com/Beyond-Human-Rights-and-the-War-on-Terror/Juss/p/book/9781138543775</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/><lastEdited>2019-02-01T16:26:19.4450624</lastEdited><Created>2018-11-19T09:38:54.5764818</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><surname>Lord Carlile QC</surname><order>2</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0045967-01022019162549.pdf</filename><originalFilename>45967.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2019-02-01T16:25:49.9800000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>217896</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2020-05-02T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807> |
spelling |
2019-02-01T16:26:19.4450624 v2 45967 2018-11-19 Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98 0000-0002-7483-9023 Stuart Macdonald Stuart Macdonald true false 2018-11-19 HRCL In furtherance of its commitment to prosecuting suspected terrorists, the UK has enacted a large number of terrorism precursor offences. In this chapter we evaluate this use of the criminal sanction and suggest that there is a need for greater legislative restraint. We develop this argument by first examining three non-criminal methods of disrupting terrorist activity: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs); asset-freezing; and, proscription. Whilst each of these powers has been found to be necessary, we outline four sets of concerns about them that explain why they are regarded as less desirable in principle than prosecution. We then turn to terrorism precursor offences and, whilst agreeing that they are needed for the sake of prevention, argue that the wide range of such offences currently in force in the UK go too far in pursuit of this objective. As a result, the same concerns that apply to the non-criminal methods of disruption apply also to terrorism precursor offences. We argue that this is counter-productive, for it risks undermining the very features of the criminal law that give it its unique moral authority and legitimacy in the first place. Book chapter Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror 125 142 Routledge Abingdon 9781138543775 Criminal law, counterterrorism, human rights, security 2 11 2018 2018-11-02 https://www.routledge.com/Beyond-Human-Rights-and-the-War-on-Terror/Juss/p/book/9781138543775 COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University 2019-02-01T16:26:19.4450624 2018-11-19T09:38:54.5764818 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Stuart Macdonald 0000-0002-7483-9023 1 Lord Carlile QC 2 0045967-01022019162549.pdf 45967.pdf 2019-02-01T16:25:49.9800000 Output 217896 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true 2020-05-02T00:00:00.0000000 true eng |
title |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? |
spellingShingle |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? Stuart Macdonald |
title_short |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? |
title_full |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? |
title_fullStr |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? |
title_sort |
Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? |
author_id_str_mv |
933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98 |
author_id_fullname_str_mv |
933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98_***_Stuart Macdonald |
author |
Stuart Macdonald |
author2 |
Stuart Macdonald Lord Carlile QC |
format |
Book chapter |
container_title |
Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror |
container_start_page |
125 |
publishDate |
2018 |
institution |
Swansea University |
isbn |
9781138543775 |
publisher |
Routledge |
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 |
https://www.routledge.com/Beyond-Human-Rights-and-the-War-on-Terror/Juss/p/book/9781138543775 |
document_store_str |
1 |
active_str |
0 |
description |
In furtherance of its commitment to prosecuting suspected terrorists, the UK has enacted a large number of terrorism precursor offences. In this chapter we evaluate this use of the criminal sanction and suggest that there is a need for greater legislative restraint. We develop this argument by first examining three non-criminal methods of disrupting terrorist activity: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs); asset-freezing; and, proscription. Whilst each of these powers has been found to be necessary, we outline four sets of concerns about them that explain why they are regarded as less desirable in principle than prosecution. We then turn to terrorism precursor offences and, whilst agreeing that they are needed for the sake of prevention, argue that the wide range of such offences currently in force in the UK go too far in pursuit of this objective. As a result, the same concerns that apply to the non-criminal methods of disruption apply also to terrorism precursor offences. We argue that this is counter-productive, for it risks undermining the very features of the criminal law that give it its unique moral authority and legitimacy in the first place. |
published_date |
2018-11-02T19:36:41Z |
_version_ |
1821344846441349120 |
score |
11.04748 |