International relations and the fight against international terrorism

De Baripedia

International terrorism is pre-September 11 terrorism. We will deal with the fight against terrorism by trying to see how the law has interpreted the issue of international terrorism, what have been the different definitions according to it and the different means of combating international terrorism.

Conceiving terrorism in public international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The different possible meanings of the notion of "international"[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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: « 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.

Lawyers will distinguish between the question of the individual act and a collective act. An "individual terrorism" is either an isolated act of an individual, but also an individual act of a group meaning a criminal gang. In this description, there is the fact that the borders are very fragile between a political crime with the ideological intention of a common criminality that would be abused of a situation or destroy for a private interest or non-political motives. At the state level, it would be a group of individuals attacking a state. There is an infringement of public order and a potential destabilization of that public order. It's a legal logic.

A central concept: the concept of EXTRANEITY ["what is foreign"][modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The concept of foreignness means something that is foreign, something that has a foreign dimension beyond the domestic question. In terrorism is immediately understood the fact that there are several types of foreigners. It could be:

  • foreign terrorists acting on national soil;
  • terrorists acting off national soil;
  • the place of execution of victims who are foreign to the nationality of the victims;
  • consequences produced outside the place and country where the attack occurred;
  • destroyed interests[persons and property] damaged on foreign soil, for example, the embassy that belongs to the aggressed country and not to the country in which it is located.

The complexity of case situations in foreign countries is becoming apparent, which will obviously interfere with the ability or otherwise to deal with the problem. The more foreign, the more complex the right to manage the situation is. The simplest situation would be a nation state where there is a terrorist act committed by nationals. As soon as there is a foreign country, we enter a much more complicated system that will have a number of legal limits and which will begin to be lifted in the post-9/11 period.

First international terrorism conventions[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

International conventions show how difficult it is to define terrorism from a legal point of view, but also how difficult it is to define the conditions of prosecution. According to the 1937 Geneva Convention signed by 24 States, terrorism is a « criminal act against a State and the purpose or nature of which is to provoke terror in specified persons, groups of persons or the public ». This vague definition that identifies the personalities accused: it is an isolated act against a head of state in a public.

The second important text is the Washington Convention, which is the convention of the Organization of American States of 2 February 1971[2] which defines terrorism as « acts that produce an effect of terror or intimidation on the inhabitants of a State or a part of its population and that cause a common danger to the life, health, physical integrity or freedom of persons by the use of methods or means which, by their very nature, cause ». There is an effect of tipping point of multiplication of the act and violence.

This convention takes much more control over the issue of disturbance to public order and will begin to evolve towards a definition that is much more rooted in society and the consequences of violence in society. International definitions in public law evolve according to the nature of the evolution of terrorism itself. For example, the concept of the aircraft itself poses the extraneity problem.

Thus, terrorism can be described as international in several ways:

  • An individual or collective internal terrorism which raises itself at the international level as a hold-up committed by a Swiss in Sweden, a hijacking of aircraft committed by Russians in South Africa, the exemplary case of the Basque movements. The international arrives ipso facto as soon as there is a border crossing. International law will take into account any act of terror;
  • an international conflict that is consistent and encourages terrorist violence in third countries. It is a regional conflict that spills over by internationalizing the de facto conflict from a legal point of view;
  • the terrorist act affects a person under international protection;
  • the perpetrator takes refuge in a foreign country.

Case of today's homegrown terrorism[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

These are the new forms of violence that have arisen over the past decade or so and are developing in Western states, which are domestic terrorism and are terrorist acts produced by nationals, but which have an international or extranational claim.

The term « homegrown terrorism » means the use, planned to use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

The different forms of international terrorism under public law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

By public international law, there is going to be a concept which raises the problem of "international terrorism under ordinary law". There may be "ideological terrorism", but there may also be international terrorism under ordinary law, such as criminals who use "terrorist processes" and play on the permeability of borders. They are hostage-taking for ransom and border crossings, but also organised crime. However, this raises the difficulty of knowing when to speak of "terrorist acts" in common law violence?

With the concept of "ideological international terrorism", ideologies are transnational. They therefore play with the borders of nation-states in order to import and export themselves. Some countries may use identities or ideologies to intervene with their neighbours. Some can use in the conflicts they have with other countries the ideological contribution is contested in the other country. Risk is the use of terrorism as a destabilizing tool.

The context of "ideological international terrorism" is irredentism and the awakening of local peculiarities that seek logistical support abroad. Or protect yourself behind a border. For example, the Basques of ETA or the case of the Palestinian diaspora, who find themselves separated on several countries and who struggle from one country to Israel or to other countries.

The Nature of International Terrorism in Public International Law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

There will be two very interesting designs showing the complexity of things. An important distinction is made between:

  1. "International terrorism arise from legal hostilities": countries are at war with each other and there are acts in the so-called "terrorist" milieu. All public international law wanted to settle the war. In this regulation of wars, it appears that there may be abuses by armed groups on the method of terrorist acts. In the context of war, there are so-called "terrorist" actions either by legal rules or population terrorists in the case of occupation.
  2. "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.

Acting against international terrorism[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Places of production of standards[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

International conferences for the international unification of criminal law; this is because in the public construction of international law, there are international conferences that will try to support convergence on international laws and regulations. With the international conferences, we are witnessing developments in the concept of the word "terrorism".

Warsaw, 1927: To study "the acts perpetrated abroad and consistent in the deliberate use of any means likely to create a common danger".

Brussels, 1930: Definitions of terrorism:"a common danger." Terrorist acts ":" If the act is directed against the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons or against public or private heritage and is carried out with the aim of promoting or implementing political or social ideas ".

December 1931: Definition of Terrorism:"Anyone who, for the purpose of terrorizing the population, uses against persons or property of bombs, mines, explosives, incendiary materials, firearms or other destructive devices that cause or seek to spread any epidemic disease, epizootic or other calamity or interrupt government services of public utility".

Madrid, 1935: it is a reflection on the notion of universal jurisdiction for terrorist acts. A State may prosecute terrorists regardless of the location of the attack itself and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators and/or victims. The idea emerges that the terrorist act as such must be combated everywhere. A State could prosecute terrorists regardless of the location of the attack, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.

Copenhagen, 1935: Reflection on a special criminalisation in case of "disturbances in the functioning of public authorities or in international relations". Emphasis on attacks on life, heads of state and families and diplomats.

Les conventions internationales[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

All the international conventions, which are the international legal texts that seek to condemn international terrorism, appear.

The first convention condemning international terrorism was made within the framework of the League of Nations in Geneva in 1937. It is the first to condemn "international terrorism" and was signed by 24 countries. The second establishing an International Criminal Court is signed by 13 countries. However, we didn't come up with something very powerful. No further action, because of the Second World War, there was no ratification and no consensus on the idea of extradition.

United Nations Security Council

The debate was resumed in 1945 with the creation of the United Nations, which would appear to be an important forum for reflection on violence in the international context. The UN has a role to ensure safety and security on the plant. The challenge is political cooperation for peace. The initial thinking is to think of continuity with the Geneva Convention of 1937. Emerges the notion of the possible complicity of States in the development of terrorism.

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

  • The General Assembly ": its mission is" peacekeeping "and" political cooperation ". Since 1945, more than 12,000 resolutions have been adopted.
  • The Security Council: responsible for "maintaining international security". There are 15 members, including 5 permanent members from the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China. It is the international police agency that produces resolutions.

First cycle of conventions: 1963 - 1971[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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".

With the attacks at the Munich Olympic Games, a question that no one had imagined was asked. Peacetime Olympism becomes a theatre of conflict. The Americans in 1972 proposed the concept of an "international crime" offence.

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.

Deuxième cycle de conventions: 1973 - 2000[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The second round of conventions shows that nothing concrete has emerged in terms of defining terrorism as a legal definition of international terrorism. These are conventions that will stick to the reality of the transformation of violence.

14 December 1973: Prevention and punishment of offences against internationally protected persons

26 October 1979: Combating the illicit use of nuclear materials

17 December 1979: Qualification of hostage-taking

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

10 March 1988: Protection of maritime platforms

1 March 1991: Mandatory marking of plastic explosives to make them detectable.

9 December 1994: Eradicating international terrorism

17 December 1996: Developing legal instruments against international terrorism

9 December 1999: Combating financing and money laundering

The concept of "due diligence" - duty of care - requested of States[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The United Nations can only recommend that States have an obligation to be vigilant about what is happening on their territory in order to spread international awareness of the struggle. This dissemination is carried out through all regional organizations managing diplomatic and economic relations. Some will ratify the UN conventions:

  • the Organization of American States (OAS)
  • The Organization of African Unity[OAU]
  • Southeast Asian Association[ASCAR]
  • The Arab League

The example of the Arab League: Convention of 22 April 1998[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This example shows why the United Nations did not manage to overcome an interesting reading of terrorism awareness until 11 September 2001.

The Arab League doesn't want to recognize the Palestinian fighters as terrorists.

According to the Arab League, terrorism is « any act of violence or threat of violence, regardless of the causes and purposes committed to carry out an individual or collective criminal project aimed at spreading terror among people or frightening them by harming or endangering their lives, liberty? or security? or at harming the environment, one of the public services, public or private property, or the environment ».

The terrorist offence is "any offence or commencement of an offence committed for the purpose of terrorism in any Contracting State or directed against its nationals, property or interests and punishable under the domestic law of that State". (a) The Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed on 14 September 1963; (b) The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed on 16 December 1970.(d) The New York Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, signed on 14 December 1973.(e) The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, signed on 17 December 1979; (f) The United Nations Convention of 1983 (sic)[1982] on the Law of the Sea, in particular with regard to maritime piracy ".

Article 2 (a) provides that « not all cases of armed struggle, conducted with various means, including armed struggle against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute an offence ». (b) None of the terrorist offences mentioned in the preceding article constitutes a political offence. Article 2 (a) excludes the fact that Palestinian action can be considered a terrorist act.

The European Case[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In Europe, the fight against terrorism has long been linked to the fight against terrorism developed by each nation-state. As early as 1974, a movement began to build a European territory for the fight against terrorism. United Nations conventions will be integrated, notably those of Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal.

1973: Council of Europe condemns the "Acts of international terrorism".

1974: Europe's ministers call for stronger control measures.

1975: Strengthening of the extradition convention of December 1957.

1976: Creation of TREVI. System for the exchange of information among States on terrorism, its threats, equipment, technical means and police training to combat international terrorism more effectively.

1977: The French President calls for the "constitution of a European judicial area" based on European mutual assistance is strengthened. Extradition between Member States will be developed.

Between 1981 and 1997,9 resolutions were passed, but there were persistent blockages due to the states' reluctance to act?

1982: Failure of the French Minister of Justice's proposal to create a European Criminal Court which would have been able to deal directly with terrorist acts.

1985: Schengen agreements on the free movement of persons in Europe which strengthen police and judicial cooperation between Member States.

The area of freedom goes hand in hand with the creation of a traffic control area covering organised crime, prostitution, money laundering, trafficking in works of art and terrorism.

1992: Treaty of Maastricht." Third pillar "= justice. Terrorism is becoming a central focus of European cooperation.

1999: Treaty of Amsterdam. The area of freedom? is linked to security? and justice. A step towards European criminal sovereignty? is taken. Mutual recognition of judicial decisions.

1999: Tempere Council of Europe; 4 priority axes are defined in the field of judicial cooperation and the European judicial area:

  • principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions;
  • Approximation of Member States' criminal legislation;
  • development of European cooperation agencies: EUROPOL - European Police Office) and EUROJUST - European Office of Justice;
  • intensification of relations between EUROJUST and third countries.

2001: Adoption by the Council of Europe of the International Convention on Combating Cybercrime?

Law enforcement: the legal effects of international terrorism on prosecution and repression[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Classical principles of judicial law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

These are the categories in which questions of law and legal competence can be engaged:

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

active personality principle "[of wrongdoing] means the prosecution by a State of a national of its own nationality who has committed a wrongdoing abroad;

  • The "passive personality principle"[of reprehensible conduct] is the principle of "passive personality": to prosecute acts committed abroad on national soil, but which have caused the victims of my State. France had not developed it;
  • Reality principle: recognise the jurisdiction of the courts of the country whose interests have been affected by the offences. The least obvious in classic repressive law.

These cases explain why it was difficult to move forward because everyone applied these principles according to their own convenience and interests. ETA used France as a rear base for combat in Spain. The right to prosecute terrorists was thus for a long time limited by the classic principles adopted by each State in judicial matters. The recognition of foreign jurisdictions as having jurisdiction was long and limited by many pitfalls. For example, extradition was also for a long time limited by the non-recognition by courts and States of the jurisdiction of foreign courts and tribunals.

The principle of universal jurisdiction: an original system[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Universal jurisdiction is an idea that emerged in the 1990s. It is the idea of undermining universal values and serious crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

A State is in a position to prosecute the perpetrators of an offence committed in its territory, regardless of the place of execution, the nationality of the persons who participated in the offence, or the nationality of the victims.

This was admitted gradually in the West by the Belgian law of 16 June 1993, which gave rise to numerous complaints. The Belgian courts, in the name of universal jurisdiction, have found themselves beset by a host of requests concerning Bush, Pinochet, Sabra and Chatila creating diplomatic problems and issues. However, this law is limited by the Act of 1 August 2003, which recognizes foreign courts as having jurisdiction. This approach is partly found in other European countries for some of the most serious crimes.

The question posed by jurists is whether the progressive application of international treaties by countries around the world is not conducive to the adoption of a global system of universal jurisdiction. Lawyers are unable to develop an international court to think of terrorism. It is the failure of an international court.

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.

The imbroglio of extradition[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The definition of extradition is a legal procedure whereby an individual subject to an arrest warrant is expelled from a territory and handed over to the requesting authority. This is the case, for example, of Carlos, who is tried and sentenced in Paris in absentia and later handed over by Sudan. The purpose of extradition is to try, in a given country, acts committed by one or more persons either because they are nationals of that country or because they have committed reprehensible acts against the interests of that country.

The acts of international terrorism fit in perfectly well with the logic of extradition, which are acts committed from one national territory to another with victims of third nationality.

Difficulty of the dossier: the historical starting point[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The historical starting point is the movement of the ideas of the Enlightenment from the 18th century to the 19th century, which favours the emancipation of peoples with a return to freedom? through the end of slavery. There is benevolence towards the oppressed and the delinquency of political essence. This complacency, at least for some, towards revolutions in order to liberate themselves by force falling under the order of necessity.

We are going to refuse extradition for political reasons because the political reasons are noble. This can be seen very clearly in the famous Belgian law of 1 October 1833, which rejects extradition for political reasons. The Belgian law of 1 October 1833 refuses extradition for political reasons, because Belgium was born of a revolt against the Netherlands. The advantage for states is that they give asylum to political backbenchers to negotiate in the aftermath. The law of 10 March 1927 in France states that extradition must be refused if it has a "political character", but also "if it is requested for a political purpose". We have to produce an inversion that will produce a lot of difficulty. It is therefore necessary to change the mentality so that extradition can be adopted for ideological or political crimes.

The starting point[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Huile sur toile illustrant l"attentat d'Orsini" de 1862.

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 European countries have taken over the Belgian clause and will for a long time be putting forward a paradox since, in order for the perpetrators of a terrorist attack to be prosecuted, the terrorist action must not be regarded as political.

Hence the emergence of a second category of actors of violence considered as non-political, namely anarchist crimes. To do the opposite of this law, it is necessary to wait until the twentieth century to allow for non-political extradition to make it possible to judge terrorist political acts. These are "social crimes" which will enable European states to extradite anarchists: Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, France, etc.

The questioning of "non-political extradition" to allow political extradition comes after the Second World War with the United Nations conventions already mentioned: Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal. Thus, it is possible to try terrorists by extradition if the State in which they have taken refuge refuses to try them. The progressive extension of the concept of universal jurisdiction to terrorist cases is restricting the possible use of refusal of extradition in this type of field.

Judging international terrorism[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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.

22 December 1975, at Vienna airport. This was the first coup de force that made Illich Ramirez-Sanchez known as Carlos, 26 years old at the time: the taking of 66 hostages at an OPEC meeting in Vienna, including 11 oil ministers. They will be released in Algiers. The attack killed three people. Until his arrest in 1994, the terrorist was seen in Iraq, Syria and Libya. (AFP) [3]

The school case is the hostage-taking of OPEC ministers in Vienna in December 1975. The balance sheet is of three employees murdered, 66 hostages then a flight to Algiers on board a DC 9 with 42 hostages. Austria does not request extradition from the Algerian government on whose territory the terrorists fled. We do not have the effective tools to make access to these terrorists possible. There is a feeling of inefficiency and wasted time.

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.

The fight against terrorism until 11 September 2001[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

There are specific characteristics. The fight against terrorism is not like any other public policy:

  • Confidentiality is a public policy;
  • Secret: this is the result of a management of information that is not disclosed to the public. "The secret is the character and stakes of efficiency. In democracies, parliamentary committees can question public policies in a limited way. Consistency is to be understood in the very logic in which the nation-state was built. It's a complex thing, all the more complex because you're in some form of secrecy;
  • It is by going to the very heart of individuals that the struggle is built. As the issue is national security, in democracy national security takes precedence over the freedom of individuals;
  • The United Nations states do not necessarily play a transparent role between secret services;
  • It does not target a particular population or social category;
  • Measures applied according to the logic of the State Reason;
  • The action of the present: there is a logic of present - future;
  • It is necessary to be aware of the preparation of the act before the act. We need to follow the entire bomb-making process;
  • Forecasting and prospective effectiveness: depending on the understanding of the terrain, one can anticipate.

The fight against terrorism has other characteristics:

  • It is part of the history of nation-states;
  • It is the foundation of external security, but also of internal security: it is necessary to secure the interests outside, for that *it is necessary to monitor what could happen. Within the nation-state, we must ensure that there is no return of violence. This is a management logic for both reports;
  • It can be read as a process of densification of methods and means of accumulating strata: we must speak in terms of evolution of the logic of strata and violence. The performance logic is based on the fact that confidentiality builds knowledge. There is a race to find out what's going on;
  • The new mechanisms are born of the "transition to new violence";
  • The weight of cultures and traditions is preponderant: a State without a colonial past has less intelligence culture. Experience is the basis of competence.

Cultures are very important, because societies that have experienced internal political violence have developed predominant monitoring systems.

The fight against terrorism has three levels:

  • Intelligence: this is what conditions the action, without intelligence we are helpless.
  • coordination
  • repression

We start from the need for information management right up to the sanction.

Intelligence[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The overriding function of intelligence is on the threat and probability side. The real-time construction of the image of the situation makes it possible to evade the shadow zones that make it impossible to understand a situation as a whole. There are considered to be several types of information:

  • Strategic intelligence: can come from an analysis of an environment or information;
  • Defense intelligence: relates to vital points;
  • police intelligence;
  • operational intelligence: exploiting in a much more active vision.

These 4 activities comprise 4 clusters:

  • Documentation information;
  • investigative intelligence;
  • Anticipation intelligence;
  • situation intelligence.

The need for intelligence will make it clear that there are many agencies that will work on intelligence that cannot be confined to one type of intelligence that results in a loss of analytical effectiveness. That is why intelligence is divided into several structures. The complexity of intelligence missions explains the juxtaposition of several structures within the same State. In Western democracies, domestic intelligence is also distinguished from foreign intelligence. These differentiations are now blurring.

URSS[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  • KGB: State Security, Foreign Intelligence and Homeland Security;
  • GRU: General Staff Intelligence - External Defence.

Some very interesting things are that the military has an operational intelligence security function. The armies are a security protection issue. It is a whole set of administrations that make intelligence fundamental.

United States[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The United States is developing the concept of "intelligence community":

  • FBI: Police on American soil;
  • ICA: Analysis agency for external information;
  • Institutional cooperation between the two agencies [FBI and CIA]. Intelligence Authorization Act, 1996;
  • DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency];
  • NSA [National Security Agency];
  • National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA);
  • CGI [Coast Guard Intelligence];
  • OI [Office of Intelligence] (Department of Energy];
  • INSCOM [Intelligence and Security Command] (Department of Defense);
  • ID [The Intelligence Department][Sea Corps];
  • The Office of Naval Intelligence[US Navy];
  • AIA [Air Inteligence Agency][US Air Force];
  • IAP [Information Analysis and Infrastructure].
  • TFI [Office of Terrorism and Finance Intelligence], Treasury Department.

France[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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 repression[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

We distinguish between spies and people who will cooperate with the secret service. There is a circle of professionals and a whole group of individuals who will communicate what they observe. The challenge is to anticipate in order to avoid.

Existing arrangements are complex. The DNAT[National Anti-Terrorism Division] is linked to the Ministry of the Interior, which was created in 1998 and is based in the regions on the SRPJ[Regional Judicial Police Services] and in Paris, on what is a specific case, the Anti-Terrorism Section of the Criminal Brigade. The BIS[Research and Intervention Brigades] are in charge of surveillance and surveillance/ In addition to surveillance can also be called the OCRB[the Central Office for the Suppression of Banditry]. For arrests, there are no specialized services, but in the event of particular difficulties, it may call on the army, either the GIGN[Groupe d' Intervention de la gendarmerie nationale] or the RAID[Groupe de Recherche, assistance, intervention et dissuasion].

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.

Conclusion - the emergence of a new actor: Europe[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

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.

The emergence of the new European actor on the reflection of the penal area makes it possible to raise awareness at European level of the need to advance national legislation on the triple level of intelligence, police and judicial cooperation. What used to be a matter of normalization has entered into anti-terrorism issues. The logic of nation-states slows down in some areas because of the logic of national security. The Member States will be urged to harmonise their legislation, particularly after the urgent ratification of the UN conventions.

The Schengen agreements mark an important turning point with the emergence of the European criminal area. This may be a step towards the creation of a Europe as a leading player in the fight against terrorism in the future.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  • ARTE. “Terrorisme, Raison D'État (1/2) | ARTE.” YouTube, Arte, 12 Mar. 2019,
  • ARTE. “Terrorisme, Raison D'État (2/2) | ARTE.” YouTube, YouTube, 12 Mar. 2019,

Bibliographie[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  • Mario Bettati, Le droit d’ingérence, Paris, Editions Odile Jacob, 1996 ;
  • Gilbert Guillaume, Georges Levasseur, Terrorisme international, Paris, A. Pedone, 1977 ;
  • Alain Joxe, L’empire du chaos. Les Républiques face à la domination américaine dans l’après-guerre froide, Paris, La Découverte, 2004 ;
  • Intervenir ? Droits de la personne et raisons d’Etat, Paris, Grasset, 1993 ;
  • Yves-Marie Laulan, La planète balkanisée, Paris, Pluriel, 1993 ;
  • Philippe Marchesin, Les nouvelles menaces. Les relations Nord-Sud des années 1980 à nos jours, Paris, Karthala, 2001.
  • Philippe Moreau Defarges, Un monde d’ingérences, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 1997 ;
  • Michel Wieviorka, Sociétés et terrorisme, Paris, Fayard, 1988 ;
  • Jean Ziegler, Contre l’ordre du monde, les rebelles, Paris, Le Seuil, 1983 ;
  • Charles Zorgbibe, La Méditerranée sans les Grands ? , Paris, 1980 ;
  • Glaser, Stefan. "Le Terrorisme International Et Ses Divers Aspects." Revue Internationale De Droit Comparé 25.4 (1973): 825-50. Web. <>.

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]