By Sulaiman Lebbe Rifai

Nothing puts the human conscience on trial as does the Genocide in Gaza. Nothing illustrates the political hypocrisy of some Western leaders as does the war in Gaza. Nothing exemplifies the double standard of Western political leaders as their complicity in the Gazan war. Moreover, this war has put the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court in a somewhat difficult and precarious position. It has also put the UNHR in a difficult situation and it is alarmed with the seriousness of atrocities in Gaza. These courts and international organizations are instituted to establish justice and fairness in all international conflicts. They cannot discriminate between countries in their application of justice. They cannot apply one set of laws to the State of Zionist Israel and another set of laws to the people of Palestine. They must do unconditional justice to all parties equally without any prejudice, racial religious, or political discrimination. They must do this to protect the integrity and reputation of these international institutions and yet, the Zionist State of Israel and its supporters are standing between these institutions and their official responsibilities to apply laws equally to all. Take, for instance, the South African lawsuit against the state of Israel for its genocide in the Gaza Strip. Many countries in the Global South welcomed and supported South Africa’s initiative to file a case against Israel and yet, many Western countries blindly dismissed the legal complaint of South Africa in support of Israel as if there was no genocide committed in the Gaza by the State of Israel. To understand the gravity of the political discrimination of some Western leaders on the problem of the Gaza Genocide, we should revisit the contents of the UN’s convention on the prevention of the Crime of Genocide.

Unpublished paper, 2024.

By Roger Douglas

It is commonly believed that a state facing a terrorist threat responds with severe legislation that compromises civil liberties in favour of national security. Roger Douglas compares responses to terrorism by five liberal democracies— the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand— over the past 15 years. He examines each nation’s development and implementation of counterterrorism law, specifically in the areas of information gathering, the definition of terrorist offenses, due process for the accused, detention, and torture and other forms of coercive questioning. Douglas finds that terrorist attacks elicit pressures for quick responses, which often allow national governments to accrue additional powers. But emergencies are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for such laws, which may persist even after fears have eased. He argues that responses are influenced by institutional interests and prior beliefs and are complicated when the exigencies of office and beliefs point in different directions. He also argues that citizens are wary of government’s impingement on civil liberties and that courts exercise their capacity to restrain the legislative and executive branches. Douglas concludes that the worst anti-terror excesses have taken place outside of, rather than within, the law and that the legacy of 9/11 includes both laws that expand government powers and judicial decisions that limit those very powers. 

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2022. 337p.

By Stuart Caseey-Masten

This Geneva Paper describes the main components of international counterterrorism law. In addition to the sectoral United Nations (UN) conventions on terrorism, international counterterrorism law encompasses rules across international humanitarian law and international criminal law, and its application is regulated by international human rights law. Also considered is the manner in which jus ad bellum (the law on the inter-state use of force) pertains to acts of terrorism, for this continues to be disputed. Key definitions of terrorism – for there are many, not one – are also discussed, including the difference between international terrorism and domestic terrorism, and between terrorism in peacetime and terrorism in armed conflict.

 Geneva: SWIT: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2023, 44p.

By M.R. Haberfeld, Joseph F. King and Charles A. Lieberman

The introductory chapter of this book presents the concepts of the benefits inherent in the study of comparative approach for an effective counterterrorism response on the local law enforcement level and overviews the inception of the project. Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century, especially after the events of September 11, 2001, the legitimacy of law enforcement practices has been cited as a major concern for international criminal justice. As policing practitioners and scholars throughout the world shifted focus from a traditional reactive, crime control stance to the need for accountability mechanisms to ensure the s- port of citizenry in combating crime and terrorism, the democratization of policing was seen as the best mechanism for achieving long-term gains in public order at the same time as protecting human rights. While the need to maintain human rights remains an important issue, balancing these concerns with the important public safety interests of societies is paramount.

Cham: Springer, 2009. 190p.

Read/Download

Edited by Beatrice de Graaf and Alex P. Schmid.

A Performative Perspective. “…terrorism trials can be an exceptional opportunity better to understand and, hence, counter terrorism, since they are the only place where most, if not all, of the actors in a terrorist incident meet again: terrorists, state representatives, the judiciary, the audience, surviving victims, terrorist sympathisers, etc. The media will report and broadcast their respective performances. Forming a nexus between terrorist violence, law enforcement and public opinion, terrorism trials thus offer the prospect of showcasing justice in progress, and in so doing of demonstrating to the world how terrorist suspects are dealt with under the laws of the land.”

Leiden University Press (2016) 603p.