By Michael Wolfowicz, Yael Litmanovitz, David Weisburd, and Badi Hasisi

Abstract Background: Two of the most central questions in radicalization research are, (1)why do some individuals radicalize when most of those from the same groups or exposed to similar conditions do not? and (2) why do radicalized individuals turn to radical violence while the majority remain inert? It has been suggested that the answer to both questions lie in the cumulative and interactive effects of a range of risk factors. While risk assessment and counter‐radicalization take a risk‐protectivefactor approach, there is widespread debate as to what these factors are and which are most important.Objectives: This review has two primary objectives.1) To identify what the putative risk and protective factors for different radica-lization outcomes are, without any predeterminations.2) To synthesize the evidence and identify the relative magnitude of the effects of different factors.The review's secondary objectives are to:1) Identify consistencies in the estimates of factors across different radicalizationoutcomes.2) Identify whether any significant heterogeneity exists within factors between(a) geographic regions, and (b) strains of radicalizing ideologies.Search Methods: Over 20 databases were searched for both published and gray literature. In order to provide a more comprehensive review, supplementary sear-ches were conducted in two German and one Dutch database. Reference harvesting was conducted from previous reviews and contact was made with leading researchers to identify and acquire missing or unpublished studies.Selection Criteria: The review included observational studies assessing the out-comes of radical attitudes, intentions, and/or radical behaviors in OECD countries and which provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes for individual‐level risk and protective factors.Data Collection and Analysis: One‐hundred and twenty‐seven studies, containing 206 samples met the inclusion criteria and provided 1302 effect sizes pertaining to over 100 different factors. Random effects meta‐analyses were carried out for each factor, and meta‐regression and moderator analysis were used to explore differ-ences across studies.Results: Studies were primarily cross‐sectional, with samples representing 20 OECD countries. Most studies examined no specific radicalizing ideology, while others focussed on specific ideologies (e.g., Islamist, right‐wing, and left‐wing ideologies). The studies generally demonstrated low risk of bias and utilized validated or widely acceptable measures for both indicators and outcomes.With some exceptions, sociodemographic factors tend to have the smallest estimates, with larger estimates for experiential and attitudinal factors, followed by traditional criminogenic and psychological factors.Authors' Conclusions: While sociodemographic factors are the most commonly examined factors (selective availability), they also tend to have the smallest es-timates. So too, attitudinal and even experiential factors, do not have effect sizes of the magnitude that could lead to significant reductions in risk through tar-geting by interventions. Conversely, traditional criminogenic factors, as well as psychological factors tend to display the largest estimates. These findings suggest the need to broaden the scope of factors considered in both risk assessment and intervention, and this review provides much needed evidence for guiding the selection of factors

Campbell Systematic Reviews: Volume 17, Issue 3 September 2021, 90 p.

By Timothy Cubitt and Anthony Morgan

Using a large, national survey of online Australians, we measured unintentional and intentional exposure to fringe or radical content and groups online.

Two in five respondents (40.6%) reported being exposed to material they described as fringe, unorthodox or radical. One-quarter of these respondents (23.2%) accessed the content intentionally. One-third (29.9%) said the content they had seen depicted violence.

Fringe or radical content was often accessed through messages, discussions and posts online. Mainstream social media and messaging platforms were the platforms most frequently used to share fringe or radical content. Being a member of a group promoting fringe or radical content was associated with increased sharing of that content with other internet users.

Efforts to restrict access to radical content and groups online, especially on mainstream platforms, may help reduce intentional and unintentional exposure to and sharing of that content.

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024. 17p.

By Peter M. Swartz

COUNTER-PIRACY OPERATIONS: LESSONS FROM HISTORY

Recent events off the Horn of Africa have once again involved the US Navy in counter-piracy operations. The Navy has been involved in operations against piracy since the 18th century. We quickly reviewed these operations and found several relevant lessons for today’s operations.

PIRACY ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE CENTURIES

We identified three distinct eras relating to piracy: the era of privateering, the era of Western imperialism, and the era of terrorism.

THE ERA OF PRIVATEERING: 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES

Privateers were civilians licensed by their sovereigns to seize upon the high seas vessels, cargoes, and crews of other nations against whom their own nation was at war. Pirates also operated for their own financial benefit on the high seas, but with no government authorization, and against the ships, cargoes, and crews of any nation. The Law of Nations allowed the forces of any nation to capture, try, and hang them. In the 18th and 19th centuries, however, it was often difficult to differentiate legal privateering from illegal piracy. During this period the American merchant marine became second only to that of Great Britain in size. As one of the world’s leading shipping powers, the United States had a vital interest in the safety of American ships, crews, cargoes, and profits. This was the principal mission set of the Navy through most of this period. This was the era of the Barbary pirates and the Caribbean anti-piracy campaign.

THE ERA OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM: 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES

The nineteenth century saw an explosion of European and American global commerce, and a concomitant increase in attacks on that commerce worldwide. Some of these attacks were sponsored by political entities: decaying empires, petty states, local warlords, and insurgent groups. Others were clearly conducted by independent bands of true pirates. Western naval operations to suppress piracy usually involved landings and assaults ashore. These anti-piracy   CNA Historical Paper Series (2006) ii operations were sometimes hard to distinguish—especially in the minds of local rulers—from the various other forms of European colonial land-grabs then underway throughout the world.

Arlington VA: CNA, 2006. (published 2021) 21p.

By Alicia Schmidt

This report outlines a conceptual model of the social and economic impacts of money laundering and terrorism financing. Drawing on a comprehensive literature review and stakeholder interviews, it identifies possible economic, societal and sectoral impacts. Economic impacts are those that affect the economy at a macro level and include reductions in economic growth and foreign direct investment and the distortion of exchange and interest rates. Societal impacts include changes in crime levels—predicate offences which generate illicit proceeds that are then laundered, crimes financed using laundered funds and crimes attracted to areas where money laundering occurs—and the associated costs to the community. They also include the consequences of terrorism enabled by terrorism financing, including the costs of terrorist attacks and the impact on national reputation. Sectoral impacts include damage to the reputation of the financial sector and other regulated entities, the crowding out of legitimate competitors, artificial increases in prices (eg real estate prices), and lost tax revenue. Importantly, not all impacts are harmful; potential benefits of money laundering include the recovery of proceeds of crime from the enforcement of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime, the profitability of certain sectors that facilitate or enable money laundering, and the growth of the AML/CTF industry. Having identified these impacts, this report assesses their significance in the Australian context and sets out a path towards quantifying the impacts identified as both relevant and measurable.

Consultancy Report Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024. 117p.