Eu responses to terrorism

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 227-243

  Peers, Steve ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442464191     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/52.1.227     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. 49 ICLQ (2000) 222.
2. OJ 2000 C 197/1.
3. OJ 2001 C 12/10.
4. OJ 2000 C 206/1 and C 243/15 (Eurojust)
5. OJ 2001 C 75/3 (freezing)
6. OJ 2001 C 278/4 (financial penalties).
7. Respectively OJ 2000 L 140/1 (amended, OJ 2001 L 329/3)
8. OJ 2001 L 149/1
9. OJ 2001 L 182/1.
10. Respectively OJ 2000 C 39/1, C 253/3 and 6
11. COM (2000) 854 (both sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons).
12. The Framework Decision on trafficking in persons has since been adopted (OJ 2002 L 203/1).
13. Recommendations on requests to national forces (OJ 2000 C 289/8)
14. participation in joint teams (OJ 2000 C 357/7).
15. OJ 2001 C 285/3.
16. COM (2001) 521 and 522.
17. OJ 2002 L 164/3 (terrorism)
18. OJ 2002 L 190/1 (arrest warrant).
19. Respectively OJ 2001 C 362/1 and Council doc 6980/02, 13 Mar 2002.
20. Respectively OJ 2001 C 326/1
21. OJ 2002 L 63/1.
22. See OJ 1999 L 327/58 (Greece)
23. OJ 2000 L 131/43 (UK) and 309/24 (Nordic states)
24. OJ 2002 L 64/20 (Ireland).
25. Conventions concerning: the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (27 ILM 668 (1988))
26. Protocol concerning the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (27 ILM 685 (1988))
27. the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague Hijacking Convention) (10 ILM 133 (1970))
28. the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Hijacking Convention)
29. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports serving Civil Aviation (27 ILM 627 (1988))
30. on the Protection and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (13 ILM 41 (1973))
31. against the Taking of Hostages (18 ILM 1456 (1979))
32. on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (UN Doc A/Res/52/164 (9 Jan 1998))
33. on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (18 ILM 1419 (1980))
34. for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (UN Doc A/54/109 (9 Dec 1999)).
35. From a huge literature, see the discussion with further references by Bassiouni, ‘Perspectives on International Terrorism’, in Bassiouni, International Terrorism: Multilateral Conventions, 1937–2001 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001).
36. See UN Doc A/54/109, Art 2(1).
37. Art 7(1)(e), Protection of Nuclear Material Convention
38. Art 3(2)(c), Maritime Safety Convention
39. Art 2(2)(c), Fixed Platforms Protocol
40. Art 2(1)(c), Protected Persons' Convention (above n 16).
41. Art 2(1)(a), Fixed Platform Convention.
42. On pre-Amsterdam measures, see S Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (Harlow: Longman, 2000) 162–4; see now the post-Amsterdam measures, above n 5.
43. This is largely a reference to Eurojust, above n 12 above. It should be recalled that EU rules ban cross-border double jeopardy within the EU, subject to certain exceptions: for details see Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, 164–5.
44. The scope of this rule is the subject of the first two third pillar cases referred to the Court of Justice (C-187/01 Gozutok and C-385/01 Brugge, both pending).
45. The ‘straightforward’ territorial obligations are found in Art 5(1)(a)
46. Montreal Hijacking Convention (applying to the Protocol to that Convention)
47. Art 6(1)(a), Terrorist Bombing Convention
48. Art 7(1)(a), Terrorist Financing Convention.
49. For the ‘clarified’ obligations, see Art 6(1)(a) and (b), Maritime Safety Convention (territorial waters)
50. Art 4(1)(a) and (b), Hague Hijacking Convention (where aircraft lands)
51. Art 5(1)(b) and (c), Montreal Hijacking Convention (where aircraft lands)
52. Art 3(1)(a), Fixed Platforms Protocol (continental shelf)
53. Art 3(1)(a), Protected Persons Convention
54. Art 5(1)(a), Hostages Convention
55. Art 6(1)(b), Terrorist Bombing Convention
56. Art 8(1)(a), Nuclear Materials Convention
57. Art 7(1)(b), Terrorist Financing Convention. These provisions all concern the state of registration of an aircraft and the flag state of vessels, along with the further clarifications mentioned.
58. See Art 6(1)(c), Maritime Safety Convention
59. Art 3(1)(b), Fixed Platforms Protocol
60. Art 3(1)(b), Protected Persons Convention
61. Art 5(1)(b), Hostages Convention
62. Art 6(1)(c), Terrorist Bombing Convention
63. Art 8(1)(b), Nuclear Materials Convention
64. Art 7(1)(c), Terrorist Financing Convention.
65. Art 3(1)(c), Protected Persons Convention
66. Art 5(1)(c), Hostages Convention.
67. The only examples are Art 4(1)(c), Hague Hijacking Convention
68. Art 5(1)(d), Montreal Hijacking Convention, applying only where a lessee company is a ‘national’.
69. See Art 6(2), Maritime Safety Convention (passive personality and protective)
70. Art 3(2), Fixed Platforms Protocol (passive personality and protective)
71. Art 5(1)(d), Hostages Convention (passive personality)
72. Art 6(2), Terrorist Bombing Convention (protective and passive personality)
73. Art 8(4), Nuclear Materials Convention (state of importation or exportation)
74. Art 7(2), Terrorist Financing Convention (protective, passive personality).
75. The relevant provisions extending criminal jurisdiction to such persons are all merely permissive, not mandatory: Art 6(2)(a), Maritime Safety Convention
76. Art 3(2)(a), Fixed Platforms Protocol
77. Art 5(1)(b), Hostages Convention
78. Art 7(2)(d), Terrorist Financing Convention.
79. However, Art 4(b), Tokyo Hijacking Convention, while not requiring the application of criminal sanctions, does permit criminal jurisdiction where acts are committed by or against ‘permanent residents’.
80. On the post-Amsterdam measures, above n. 5 and 6. On the pre-Amsterdam measures, see Peers, above n. 26, 153–4.
81. See Art 19(2) of that Convention, above n 16.
82. Art 1(4) of that Convention further defines the meaning of ‘military forces of a state’.
83. The relationship between state immunities and terrorism is beyond the scope of this paper. If Member States' treaty obligations require them to grant such immunity, it is not clear whether those treaty obligations or the Framework Decision would take precedence, as there is nothing in the EU Treaty to indicate the intended relationship between EU criminal legislation and any rules of international law besides human rights law (see Art 6 TEU).
84. OJ 2000 C 364.
85. Council doc 14845/1/02, 15 (above n. 15).
86. Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745.
87. See Art 7 ECHR.
88. See the rather clearer distinction in point T of the European Parliament recommendation on terrorism of 5 Sept 2001 (OJ 2002 C 72 E/139) between ‘acts whose aim is to alter … structures in States governed by the rule of law by actually threatening to use violence or resorting to violence, as distinct from acts of resistance in third countries against state structures which themselves employ terrorist methods’.
89. Common Positions 2001/930 and 931/CFSP (OJ 2001 L 344/90 and 93)
90. Reg 2580/2001 (OJ 2001 L 344/70)
91. Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ 2001 L 344/83).
92. Compare with the Commission proposal for the Regulation (COM (2001) 569 as amended by COM (2001) 713).
93. Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 116/75)
94. Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 116/33)
95. Common Position 2002/460/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 160/26)
96. Decision 2002/462/EC (OJ 2002 L 160/32).
97. See Arts 13–17 of the Common Position, transposing para 3 of the Resolution.
98. See Art 4 of the Common Position, transposing para 2(a) of the Resolution.
99. See Peers, ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy 1999–2000’ 20 YEL (2001) 531, at 562–6.
100. Reg 337/2000 (OJ 2000 L 43/1)
101. replaced by Reg 467/2001 (OJ 2001 L 67/1)
102. implemented nine times, most recently by Commission Reg 362/2002 (OJ 2002 L 58/6)
103. now replaced by Reg 881/2002 (OJ 2002 L 139/9)
104. implemented by Reg 951/2002 (OJ 2002 L 145/14).
105. On the former, see Case T-189/00 R and Case T-317/00 P(R) Invest Import und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce Sarl v Commission [2000] ECR II-2293
106. [2000] ECR I-9541. On the latter see Cases T-315/01 Khadi, T-318/01 Othman and T-306/01 Aden and others, all pending, and Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2002 in T-306/01R Aden (not yet reported).
107. See comments on Invest Import und Export by Peers, ‘Human Rights Case Law of the European Court of Justice’ (2001) 1 HRLR 145, at 166–7.
108. Respectively above n 2 and OJ 2002 L 162/1.
109. This clause was first omitted in Council doc 5715/5/02, OJ.
110. For instance, on the ‘Gladio’ network, see Statewatch Briefing, July 1991 and the annexed EP resolution of 22 Nov 1990. The Resolution alleged that ‘security services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime as evidenced by various judicial enquiries’.
111. See Art 2(1) of the Europol Convention (OJ 1995 C 316/1).
112. Council doc 5712/02.
113. Council docs 5712/1–4/02.
114. Council doc 5712/5/02. The Recommendation had not yet been adopted at time of writing.
115. See comments by the House of Commons Select Committee on European Scrutiny, 27th report (2001–2002), part 6.
116. See Council doc 10524/5/01. It is not clear whether or not this measure was later adopted.
117. See, eg, Statewatch Bulletin, May/July 2001 (Genoa).
118. Council doc 5759/02, 31 Jan 2002.