Counterterrorism and the challenges of terrorism from the far right

Kent Roach
{"title":"Counterterrorism and the challenges of terrorism from the far right","authors":"Kent Roach","doi":"10.1177/1473779520975121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how post-9/11 counterterrorism has often not been applied to far-right terrorism. Discriminatory double standards in counterterrorism should not be tolerated. Nevertheless, the answer is not simply to ratchet up counterterrorism to apply to the far-right. The legitimate desire for symbolic equality should not blind us to the underlying weaknesses of many of those instruments both in preventing terrorism and in respecting rights. In some cases, such as the United Nation’s regime of individual sanctions related to financing and travel of those associated with al Qaeda and Daesh, application to the far-right is not legally possible. It will be suggested in this article that far-right terrorism should be used as an opportunity to re-evaluate the effectiveness and propriety of all counterterrorism. A preliminary assessment suggests that counterterrorism tied to international or national proscription may not be effective (both generally and specifically in relation to the far-right). More difficult cases involve whether terrorism offences and offences targeting speech should be applied against all forms of terrorism. Interventions regulating items and material on the Internet used by terrorists and programs to counter violent extremism and to rehabilitate offenders may be promising in addressing both far-right and Daesh-inspired terrorism. Both New Zealand’s increased regulation of guns and the Christchurch calls for greater regulation of the Internet follow these more promising strategies.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"50 1","pages":"3 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779520975121","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779520975121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article examines how post-9/11 counterterrorism has often not been applied to far-right terrorism. Discriminatory double standards in counterterrorism should not be tolerated. Nevertheless, the answer is not simply to ratchet up counterterrorism to apply to the far-right. The legitimate desire for symbolic equality should not blind us to the underlying weaknesses of many of those instruments both in preventing terrorism and in respecting rights. In some cases, such as the United Nation’s regime of individual sanctions related to financing and travel of those associated with al Qaeda and Daesh, application to the far-right is not legally possible. It will be suggested in this article that far-right terrorism should be used as an opportunity to re-evaluate the effectiveness and propriety of all counterterrorism. A preliminary assessment suggests that counterterrorism tied to international or national proscription may not be effective (both generally and specifically in relation to the far-right). More difficult cases involve whether terrorism offences and offences targeting speech should be applied against all forms of terrorism. Interventions regulating items and material on the Internet used by terrorists and programs to counter violent extremism and to rehabilitate offenders may be promising in addressing both far-right and Daesh-inspired terrorism. Both New Zealand’s increased regulation of guns and the Christchurch calls for greater regulation of the Internet follow these more promising strategies.
反恐和来自极右翼的恐怖主义挑战
这篇文章探讨了9/11后的反恐如何经常不适用于极右翼恐怖主义。反恐中的歧视性双重标准不应被容忍。尽管如此,答案并不是简单地加大反恐力度以适用于极右翼。象征性平等的合法愿望不应使我们忽视其中许多文书在防止恐怖主义和尊重权利方面的根本弱点。在某些情况下,例如联合国对与基地组织和达伊什有关联的人的资助和旅行实施的个人制裁制度,在法律上不可能适用于极右翼。本文将建议,极右翼恐怖主义应被用作重新评估所有反恐的有效性和适当性的机会。初步评估表明,与国际或国家禁令相关的反恐可能无效(无论是对极右翼而言,还是对极右翼来说)。更困难的案件涉及恐怖主义罪行和针对言论的罪行是否应适用于所有形式的恐怖主义。对恐怖分子在互联网上使用的物品和材料以及打击暴力极端主义和改造罪犯的计划进行干预,可能有助于解决极右翼和Daesh引发的恐怖主义。新西兰加强对枪支的监管,克赖斯特彻奇呼吁加强对互联网的监管,都遵循了这些更有前景的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信