Modification de International relations and the fight against international terrorism

Can international law shed light on international terrorism? Obviously, the first difficulty encountered is that it is linked to the fact that the word "terrorism" is passed very late in the cenacles of international criminal law. It was not until 1930 and the Conference on the Unification of Criminal Law that the word "terrorism" appeared for the first time. The definition is rather mundane: {{citation|intentional and systematic use of means likely to provoke terror in order to achieve certain ends}}. To qualify an act as "terrorist", intentionality is required.

#"International terrorism arises from illegal hostilities": between States or the interstices of States there appears acts of violence which are in the most complete illegality. It is a matter of subversion in order to change the nature of politics through violence with the deployment of technology in order to change the state and provoke it. These movements think that in the violent reaction they are going to produce, they will succeed in attracting the approval of the population. In the majority of situations, these are struggles within a nation-state by subverting the overthrow of a legal political regime through pressure on a nation-state such as hostage-taking to obtain concessions and benefits.

The United Nations is becoming a place of production of contemporary counterterrorism norms:

The conventions that are to be adopted will follow the news of terrorism. The first round of the Convention appeared in the 1960s and 1970s, when aircraft hijackings appeared. The first important statement is on air piracy, in order to qualify the offence as air piracy. Basically, these first Tokyo Conventions appeared in 1963, The Hague in 1970 and Montreal in 1971, notably to qualify the concept of "air traffic offences".

The first problem that shows the complexity of the matter is the setback that European countries are taking, as well as Third World countries. The international system is unable to manage the problem. The project is not successful as opposed to European and Third World countries, because there is the fear of measures reaching national liberation movements that they otherwise support. Thus, the project is referred? To a commission created for this purpose. On 13 December 1973, the General Assembly merely postponed consideration of the question of the Commission until the next session of 14 December 1974.

February 24, 1988: Condemnation of acts of violence at airports

== The European Case ==

*"principle of territoriality": normal and priority rule of jurisdiction, i.e. the place where the reprehensible act is committed;

Between 1970 and 2000, it was not possible to imagine the competence of an international court to combat terrorism. Yet it was enshrined in one of the 1937 Geneva Conventions on terrorism, but never ratified, elaborated in the 1972 draft, but never conceptualized. States are not prepared to relinquish their judicial responsibilities. There has been a major difficulty in applying a renewed principle of extradition.

In 1856, the terrorist act against Napoleon III was committed by a Belgian "terrorist". The question arises of how to punish him? The Belgian law of 1 October 1833 should be amended. But in order to respect it, it must be proclaimed that "the attack on a foreign head of state will never be considered as having a political character" and that it will then be extended to the members of his family.

The problem is that since we are not in a legally unified area, extradition law is difficult to implement. The results of this difficult gestation of an extradition right for international terrorism are that there are few judgements and judgements in absentia, i.e. the perpetrators of terrorist acts are not present.

The question is raised of how to submit an extradition request when threats have been ceded to facilitate the escape of terrorists with their hostages? Carlos' case is interesting because he was arrested only 20 years later following his extradition from Sudan. The little that was judged is often not applied, on the other hand, these judgements and condemnations engage a new cycle of terror.

In France, intelligence is jointly assumed in the Ministry of the Interior by the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire [DST] created in 1944 and the Direction centrale des renseignements généraux [DCRG]. Since the 1960s, internal surveillance has integrated international terrorism on national soil and it is the DCRG that is responsible for domestic terrorism. In the Ministry of Defence, the External Documentation and Counter Intelligence Service[SDECE] created in 1945 became the Directorate General for External Security[DGSE] in 1982, and retains its powers to enter information on the spot abroad.

In the Cold War issue, counterterrorism is integrated into counterintelligence. Other agencies that will deal with external security are gradually emerging. The DNRED [Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières] at the Ministry of the Economy, the TRACFIN [Intelligence processing unit on clandestine financial circuits, FINATER [Financing of terrorism unit] or VIGIPIRATE, which is a governmental terrorism prevention plan that also centralizes intelligence.

This means that there is an organization at the political level. The Prime Minister is responsible for the Internal Security Council (ISC), which proposes a reflection on terrorism. CILAT[Interdepartmental Counter-Terrorism Liaison Committee] is the representative of ministries concerned with terrorism. At the level of operational coordination, a distinction is also made between the Bureau de liaison [BDL] Police judiciaire, my General Intelligence, and the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, which has existed since the Algerian War. The UCLAT[Standing Committee for Coordination of Counter-Terrorism] was founded in September 1982 under the direct authority of the General of the National Police. The idea is to bring all government departments together at the inter-ministerial level.

The legal level organises repression. For a long time, terrorism was the only common law crime. After the 1986 attacks, terrorism was placed in the context of organized crime and then a procedural regime that centralized the investigation and trial at the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance, i.e. a special anti-terrorist Assize Court or the seat of anti-terrorist judges. Five judges are specialised in counterterrorism cases and can initiate a specific investigation with prolonged police custody for more than 72 hours. When a terrorist is tried, he or she is tried by a specialized judge. It is an Assize Court composed of professional magistrates. A system has been set up in favour of the "repentant", the one who was engaged in acts of violence and who repents, gains a specific status. Especially in Italy, this has helped to curb political violence.

In 1994, a new criminal code was introduced in which terrorism is recognised as a specific offence. Born the modern definition of terrorism with the emergence of an anti-terrorism criminal law as a specialized and derogatory law. This new definition of terrorism can be found in Article 421-1 of the new Penal Code of 1994:"Any intentional act of willful injury to life and integrity of persons", includes the violation of the liberty of persons represented by the kidnapping, sequestration and misappropriation of any type of transport. Terrorism includes theft, extortion, extortion, destruction and computer-related offences, as well as the manufacture and possession of explosive devices, their sale and export, the stockpiling, acquisition and transfer of biological weapons, the manufacture, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Emergence of new forms of terrorism as with ecological terrorism.

The Act of 22 July 1996 formulates the concept of "terrorism by association de malfaiteurs", i.e. a criminal act thought or planned? in which the individual belongs to a group, a collective declared "terrorist". During the preliminary investigation, the flagrante delicto is the responsibility of the judicial police. The procedure derogates "by way of specialisation" from the traditional rules on geographical jurisdiction. The investigation and trial fall within the scope of responsibility of the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office through its central counterterrorism service and its judges specialized in counterterrorism.

The emergence of international terrorism has led to a profound overhaul of the anti-terrorism arrangements. There are very important nodes, such as the issue of extradition. At the level of national actors, there have been 50 years of progress, but this has also been achieved through other institutions such as regional actors, UN governance and European governance.

[[Category:political science]]

[[Category:international relations]]   

[[Category:security]]

[[Category:terrorism]]