No Cover Image

Book chapter 197 views 9 downloads

Disrupting terrorist activity: What are the limits to criminal methods of disruption? / Stuart, Macdonald

Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror, Pages: 125 - 142

Swansea University Author: Stuart, Macdonald

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...

Full description

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
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
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>LAWD</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>Legal Studies</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>LAWD</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><lastEdited>2019-02-01T16:26:19.4450624</lastEdited><Created>2018-11-19T09:38:54.5764818</Created><path><level id="1">Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level><level id="2">Legal Studies</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><action/><embargoDate>2020-05-02T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents></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 LAWD 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 Legal Studies COLLEGE CODE LAWD Swansea University 2019-02-01T16:26:19.4450624 2018-11-19T09:38:54.5764818 Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law Legal Studies 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
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 Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id hillaryrodhamclintonschooloflaw
hierarchy_top_title Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law
hierarchy_parent_id hillaryrodhamclintonschooloflaw
hierarchy_parent_title Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law
department_str Legal Studies{{{_:::_}}}Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Legal Studies
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 2018-11-02T04:10:26Z
_version_ 1674243921130029056
score 10.742085