The paper analyses the main factors that trigger radicalisation to “jihadi” fundamentalism from a socio-criminological and geopolitical perspective. The concept of radicalisation and its causes in its potential progression towards terrorist violence will be examined. The conclusion of the paper will pinpoint the flaws of the current strategies of counter-radicalisation and counter-terrorism and will outline some possible preventive ways forward.
Despite the growing international concern about State terrorism, there is a lack of consensus regarding its significance and under which assumptions international crimes are set, understanding that human rights are seriously violated. This work offers a perspective from State sponsored terrorism and the actions of parastatal agents and organizations, both in the international law as well as in the domestic one (namely, Chilean Law).
What space should be given to Italian jurisdiction and criminal law in cases of targeted killings via drones and collateral damages occurring within the framework of the so-called Global War on Terror, waged by the US in third countries? In the light of the ever more frequent use of armed drones as highly technological and depersonalizing weapons in the fight against terrorism, I will try to verify whether and how criminal law can walk throughout the rubble of drone strikes: after some brief remarks about the drone's nature and its "profitable" employment in the supranational context, the existence of Italian jurisdiction with respect to drone strikes will be discussed, especially in the light of the growing use of Sigonella as a stationing and operating base for US drones and of Italy’s "secret" cooperation in the "fight against terror". Subsequently, issues relating to the so-called “secret of State” and the authorities’ refusal to disclose operative policies will be tackled, such as both old and new obstacles to the formulation of the imputations and to the individuation of the responsibilities. Finally, will be trying to providing readers with conceptual keys to understand how criminal-law categories – such as justifications and culpability, as well as the proper identification of the authors of the crimes arising from a particular targeted killing – can adapt to such new reality.
Text of the speech (already published in the official website of the Italian Constitutional Court: see https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/varie/albi/vigano_albi.pdf) given by Francesco Viganò at the quadrilateral meeting of the French Conseil Constitutionnel and the constitutional courts of Italy, Spain and Portugal held in Albi, France on the 28 September 2018.
This article departs from the observation that terrorism, unlike ordinary crime, removes time, because when the attack takes place it is already too late : It is a defeat for the power and a test of our democracies. Therefore, ter- rorism also forces criminal justice to change its relationship with time. From here, the author starts his analysis of relationship between terrorism, time and criminal justice, in particular in terms of anticipation.
The decisions of the ECHR issued on May 31, 2018 in the cases Abu Zubaydah vs Lithuania and Al Nashiri vs Romania demonstrates once again, despite their public repercussions are rather scarce, the complicity of the EU states with a US anti-terrorist policy capable of challenging the prohibition of torture.
With a mechanism recalling the supranational blacklisting, the Italian law-maker introduced with Legislative Decree no. 90/2017 national measures of asset freezing aimed to prevent and fight financing terrorism. This is a new tool to trace the money trail which potentially crosses the Mediterranean Sea to finance ISIL or other terrorist organizations. This paper moves from analysis of the recent regulation and puts national asset freeze in the broader context of preventive measures with ban effect. Then, it focuses on its compatibility with the principles of domestic preventive system, highlighting the most critical issues: on the one hand, the justiciability deficit, on the other hand, the uncertain assessment of dangerousness. The lack of guarantees of listed persons pushes to wonder whether this domestic regulation has accomplished an adequate and lawful balancing between security and liberty.
Within the context of the controversial issue concerning the legal framework applicable to acts carried out during armed conflict, an authoritative decision of Section I of the Court of Cassation has identified a “hard core” of conduct that may be identified as “terrorist”, relying heavily on the classification of the victims of such armed attacks. Yet the conduct of foreign fighters, which falls into a gray area not entirely covered by case law or legislation, requires interpreting bodies to engage in new hermeneutic efforts to try and disentangle the overlaps between national criminal law, international law and humanitarian law. Against the backdrop of the continuing lack of any regulation of the issue of foreign fighters, comparative analysis of national court decisions thus presents itself as a useful tool for mapping out the emerging guidelines developed in this area by European case law.