The duty to bring terrorists to justice and discretionary prosecution: hStefano Betti

In Res. 1373 (2001), the Security Council laid down the duty to bring terrorists to justice and to deny them safe haven. Whereas such duty expressed a clear political imperative in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, it is less clear how national authorities are supposed to translate it into a set o...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Betti, Stefano (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: [S.l.] SSRN [2010]
In: Journal of international criminal justice
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1526133725
003 DE-627
005 20220604105511.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 160223s2006 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1526133725 
035 |a (DE-576)456133720 
035 |a (DE-599)BSZ456133720 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Betti, Stefano  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The duty to bring terrorists to justice and discretionary prosecution  |b hStefano Betti  |c Stefano Betti 
264 1 |a [S.l.]  |b SSRN  |c [2010] 
300 |a Online-Ressource 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In Res. 1373 (2001), the Security Council laid down the duty to bring terrorists to justice and to deny them safe haven. Whereas such duty expressed a clear political imperative in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, it is less clear how national authorities are supposed to translate it into a set of enforceable legal obligations. If it is interpreted as obliging states to prosecute and try terrorists, as the Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee seems to suggest, the power of prosecutors to decide whether or not to bring a case to court may be severely impaired. An unconditional obligation to bring terrorists to court would not necessarily strengthen states judicial response to the threat of international terrorism. A sensible exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be instrumental in articulating a flexible and more effective response in various circumstances. Moreover, a rigid interpretation of the requirement to bring terrorists to justice does not find support in Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on terrorism. Far from mandating that alleged offenders be unconditionally brought to trial, the universal counter-terrorism conventions and protocols limit themselves to requiring that the jurisdiction of national courts be established, which is conceptually different from imposing its actual exercise 
773 0 8 |i In  |t Journal of international criminal justice  |d Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press, 2003  |g 4(2006), 5, Seite 1104-1116  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)363757368  |w (DE-600)2106537-8  |w (DE-576)110736575  |x 1478-1395  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:4  |g year:2006  |g number:5  |g pages:1104-1116 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql055  |x Resolving-System  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
936 u w |d 4  |j 2006  |e 5  |h 1104-1116 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 289964713X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1526133725 
LOK |0 005 20160223101809 
LOK |0 008 160208||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-21-110  |c DE-627  |d DE-21-110 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-21-110 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a k110 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw