Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Sascha-Dominik Bachmann (1) sbachmann@lincoln.ac.uk
• 关键词：Terrorist finance – ; Aiding and abetting responsibility – ; US Alien Tort Statute – ; US transnational litigation – ; Hybrid threats – ; Bankrupting terrorism
• 刊名：Liverpool Law Review
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：August 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：33
• 期：2
• 页码：91-109
• 全文大小：243.6 KB
• 参考文献：1. Bachmann, S.-D. 2011a. Terrorism litigation as deterrence under international law—from protecting human rights to countering hybrid threats. Amicus Curiae 87: 22–26.
  2. Bachmann, S-.D. 2011b. Civil liability of corporate and non-state aiders and abettors of international terrorism as an evolving notion under international law. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6(1): 1–11.
  3. Bachmann, S.-D. 2008. Civil responsibility for gross human rights violations—the need for a global instrument. Pretoria: Pretoria University Press.
  4. Bachmann, S.-D. 2007. Where do we stand with human rights litigation against corporations? TSAR 2: 292–308.
  5. Bachmann, S.-D., and P. Galvin. 2007. Pre-trial detention and control orders under British Anti-Terror Legislation post 9/11: Balancing a need for security with the European convention on human rights—an overview. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 28: 185–208.
  6. Bachmann, S.-D., and U. Haeussler. 2011. Targeted killing as a means of asymmetric warfare: A provocative view and invitation to debate. Law, Crime and History 1: 9–15.
  7. Bergman, R. 2011. ‘Killing terror leaders: Israel’s experience’. The Wall Street Journal, 6–8 May 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834804576301313997281974.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.
  8. Blumberg, P. 2002. Asserting human rights against multinational corporations under United States law: Conceptual and procedural problems. American Journal of Comparative Law 50: 493.
  9. Bowcott, O. (2011) Mau Mau torture claim Kenyans win right to sue British government, The Guardian, 21 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/21/mau-mau-torture-kenyans-compensation.
  10. De Schutter, O. 2006. Transnational corporations and human rights. Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing.
  11. Harpaz, G. 2004. The dispute over the treatment of products exported to the European Union from the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip-the limits of power and the limits of the law. Journal of World Trade 38(6): 1049–1058.
  12. Herz, R. 2008. THE liberalizing effects of tort: how corporate complicity liability under the alien tort statute advances constructive engagement. Harvard Human Rights Journal 21: 208–239.
  13. J酶rgensen, N. 2003. The responsibility of states for international crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Kremnitzer, M. 2010. A possible case for imposing criminal liability on corporations in international criminal law. Journal of International Criminal Justice 8: 909–918.
  15. Martin-Ortega, O. 2008. Business and human rights in conflict. Ethics & International Affairs 22(3): 273–283.
  16. McGoldrick, D. 2004. From “9–11” to the Iraq War 2003. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  17. Murphy, J.F. 1999. Civil liability for the commission of international crimes as an alternative to criminal prosecution’. Harvard Human Rights Journal 12: 1–56.
  18. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2008. Fact sheet no. 32—human rights, terrorism and counter terrorism. Geneva: United Nations. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2012.
  19. Powell, C. 2008. Defining terrorism: Why and how. In The human rights of anti-terrorism, ed. N. LaViolette, and C. Forcese, 128–164. Toronto: Irwin Law.
  20. Ramasastry, A., and R. Thompson. 2006. Commerce, crime and conflict—legal remedies for private sector liability for grave breaches of international law. Oslo: Fafo Institute of Applied International Studies.
  21. Ratner, S., J. Abrams. 2001. Accountability for human rights atrocities in international law: Beyond the Nuremberg legacy.
  22. Rau, M. 2001. Domestic adjudication of international human rights abuses and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Zeitschrift f眉r ausl盲ndisches 枚ffentliches Recht und V枚lkerrecht 61: 177–194.
  23. Ruggie, J. 2011. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, 17th sess, Agenda Item 3, UN Doc A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011).
  24. Stephens, B. 2008a. International human rights litigation in U.S courts. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  25. Stephens, B. 2008b. Judicial deference and the unreasonable views of the bush administration. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 33: 773–813.
  26. Strydom, H., and S.-D. Bachmann. 2005. Civil liability of gross human rights violations. TSAR 3: 448–469.
• 作者单位：1. Lincoln Law School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
• ISSN：1572-8625

文摘

Global terrorist networks are dependent on receiving financial support from a variety of sources, including individuals, charities and corporations. Also known as terrorist financing, the potential of terrorism finance to resemble a global threat has been recognised and also its closeness to other international crimes such as money laundering and organized crime. As a result, possible responses have to constitute co-ordinated, multi-lateral and multi faceted actions under the umbrella of a wide range of international stakeholders such as the United Nations Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force. Combating terrorism requires a ‘holistic’ approach which allows for a mix of possible responses. Besides “kinetic” security operations (such as targeted killings) and the adoption of criminal prosecution measures another possible response could be the use of US styled transnational civil litigation by victims of terrorism against both, terrorist groups and their sponsors. Corporations, both profit and non profit, such as banks and other legal entities, as well as individuals, are often complicit in international terrorism in a role of aiders and abettors by providing financial assistance to the perpetrators (cf. UN Al-Qaida Sanctions List: The List established and maintained by the 1267 Committee with respect to individuals, groups, undertakings and other entities associated with Al-Qaida). Such collusion in acts of terrorism gains additional importance against the background of so called “Hybrid Threats”, NATO’s new concept of identifying and countering new threats arising from multi-level threat scenarios. This article discusses the potential impact of US terrorism lawsuits for the global fight against terrorism.