Articles for category: Focus

State Secrecy in Counterterrorism: Different Judicial Standards of Review – The Abu Omar Case before Italian Courts

State secrecy provides an interesting viewpoint on national and supranational judicial review standards over counterterrorism measures, since it has frequently been invoked by advanced democracies in the fight against terrorism. Over the last years, the shield of secrecy has consistently concealed abuses perpetrated during intelligence operations, including the controversial practice of extraordinary renditions (ERs), carried out around the world by the US jointly with several European countries. What is more, state secret privilege has often been claimed during criminal proceedings. Therefore, essential evidence of serious violations of human rights has been shielded by the privilege, promptly invoked by governments involved ... continue reading

8. Mai 2018

Is Travel to Syrian Warfare a Terrorist Crime? The Finnish Case

On 24 January 2018, the Helsinki District Court of 24 January 2018 ruled on an alleged plan by three Muslim men, all Finnish nationals, to travel to Syria and join the ongoing armed conflict there. The prosecutor chose to base the charges on Section 2, Preparation of an offence to be committed with terrorist aim, under the construction that joining the armed opposition forces in Syria so as to engage in hostilities against the official army of the al-Assad regime, could have resulted in death or injury to members of the Syrian military forces.

8. Mai 2018

The Right to Fair Trial and the Rise of Sensitive Intelligence Evidence: Responses from the Dutch and UK Courts

Writing extra-judicially, Lord Justice Brown once described the typical court approach on matters of national security as follows: »the mere incantation of the phrase [national security] of itself instantly discourages the court from satisfactorily fulfilling its normal role of deciding where the balance of public interest lies.« (1994 Public Law) Yet, in recent times, despite a traditional reluctance to engage with sensitive intelligence evidence – cases such as Liversidge v Anderson and Cheblak, for example (Hans Born et al 2011) – some national courts have become increasingly more at ease with assessing so-called secret evidence before reaching a conclusion on the ... continue reading

7. Mai 2018

Courts and Counter-Terrorism: the Last Line of Defence?

Terrorism is all over the news these days but not always in the negative. For example, the Global Terrorism Index 2017 has established that the number of deaths caused by terrorism has decreased in 2016. Nigeria has even witnessed an 80 per cent reduction in the number of people killed by Boko Haram. At the same time terrorism is spreading to more countries. For instance, no fewer than 106 nations experienced at least one terrorist attack in 2016. In Europe, an increase is visible. While in 2002 there were 129 attacks leading to 14 deaths, the year 2016 witnessed 630 ... continue reading

7. Mai 2018

Is There A Better Way Forward?

Poland and Hungary have governments that are systematically undermining constitutional checks on the power of their leaders and deliberately turning all state institutions into arms of the party. Those cases demand that the EU’s full powers be urgently directed to averting a full-blown autocracy within the EU. What can be done?

10. März 2018

Why Poland and not Hungary?

&

According to Frans Timmermans, speaking on 17 September 2017, “the situation in Hungary is not comparable to the situation in Poland” implying that Poland is far worse off than Hungary in the rule of law department. But is that true?

8. März 2018