The development of a counterterrorism enterprise after Sept. 11, 2001, has seen over the course of nearly 20 years both tactical successes and strategic obstacles.
Matthew Levitt frames this overview of counterterrorism policy by observing that the current focus on Great Power and near power competition as US national security priorities reflects the success of Washington’s investment in counterterrorism and homeland security. However, the current environment of growing partisan polarization also reflects the need to rationalize US investment in counterterrorism and adopt a more sustainable posture on the counterterrorism mission.
By building on the role of counterterrorism within interstate conflict, observing the importance of an investment in alliances and partnerships, and assessing the budgeting for counterterrorism programs, Levitt builds a foundation to support his concluding strategic recommendations for a review and reorientation of US counterterrorism.
Warfare has transformed in the modern age from traditional warfare to more states engaging in non-international armed conflict, like the so called “war on terror.” However, the United States adheres to a standard regarding the end of non-international armed conflicts that deviates from the various approaches of international law practitioners and scholars.
In this article, Christian Schaller both questions the U.S. policy and argues it lacks clarity and transparency while also acknowledging the power it gives decision makers in combating terror, a strategy that more states have come to appreciate.
The rise of ISIS was characterized by unprecedented numbers of Western citizens traveling across the globe to fight for the “caliphate.” Their capture created a humanitarian crisis in the region: what to do with those citizens who were captured by the Iraqi and Syrian governments? European governments, the UK and France in particular, have been less than enthusiastic about repatriating their citizens to face trial at home.
Nicole Molinaro examines the situation of British and French nationals who are currently facing trial or have already been convicted as ISIS foreign fighters in Iraqi courts. She discusses domestic legal and policy regimes established by the UK and France to deal with nationals accused of engaging in terrorism, the ECHR’s substantive protections and whether they are violated, the extraterritorial scope of the ECHR, and proposes an additional basis for European countries expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction: Citizenship.
Molinaro ultimately concludes that the ECHR has jurisdiction over the individuals and that the UK and France violate articles 2 and 3 by refusing to take custody of their citizen foreign fighters.