Human Rights and Global Crisis PDF

—HUMAN RIGHTS AND GLOBAL CRISIS— 4 e année, S1, amphi Introduction What is a crisis and what is a global crisis? What events shoul...

—HUMAN RIGHTS AND GLOBAL CRISIS— 4 e année, S1, amphi Introduction What is a crisis and what is a global crisis? What events should or could be labelled as crises? Why do we have a multiplication of events labelled as crises? 1. Crisis, what crisis ? Etymology The term crisis originates from the Greek word krisis, meaning decision or choice, and from the verb krenein, meaning "to decide." It was used across various fields:  Religious context: To signify divine judgement.  Legal context: To refer to judicial decisions, highlighting the separation of right from wrong.  Medical context: Hippocrates used it to describe a pivotal moment in the progression of a disease. A crisis represents a turning point, a moment where a rupture can occur. Initially, it was seen as the beginning of something new, whether good or bad. Antonio Gramsci: “a crisis is time when the former dies and the new can appear”. Evolution of the term Over time, the meaning of crisis evolved. In the 18th century, it came to represent not just a turning point but also an event with strong destabilizing potential, one that triggers difficulties and turmoil. The temporal aspect of a crisis—signifying transition—was gradually overshadowed by its material consequences. As a result, the term began to be applied broadly, to any event involving difficult decisions and the potential for instability. This expansion of the term allowed for its strategic use, particularly in politics, where crises are often invoked to justify extraordinary measures or to excuse poor decisions. We assist to a multiplication of events labelled as crises. Edgar Morin describes this phenomenon as a “Damoclean era,” where political actors gain an advantage by framing events as crises, which then legitimizes unusual decisions or actions. This proliferation leads to the question: are we living in a state of constant crisis? Globalization Every part of the world is more and more interconnected to other parts. This increased interdependences of networks, markets and individuals leads to an increased vulnerability and the potential for global destabilization. As Ulrich Beck argues in World at Risk, this interconnectedness amplifies the impact of crises, transforming them into global phenomena. There are 3 types of global crises: 1. Crises that threaten the world as we know it. 2. Crises that can only be addressed globally (e.g., environmental crises). 3. Crises that are widespread on a global scale, affecting multiple regions simultaneously (e.g., the democratic crisis), often exacerbated by the global spread of information. 2. The link between crisis and human rights A) Post-WWII Human rights developments WWII influence Human rights, and their legal protection, are largely the result of one of the most significant global crises: World War II (WWII). The war and its aftermath led to the constitutionalization and globalization of human rights, prompted by the unprecedented loss of life and moral shock. WWII caused over 50 million deaths, including the systematic genocide of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. The sheer scale of the atrocities committed, coupled with the use of atomic bombs in Japan, profoundly impacted the international community. This moral reckoning spurred the development of human rights as a global concern, leading to the adoption of international legal frameworks aimed at ensuring such violations would "never again" occur.  The war marked a pivotal moment in how the international community viewed its role in protecting humanity.  Paul Valéry's observation, “Human societies are mortal,” highlighted a new awareness of humanity’s capacity for self-destruction.  As a response, the first international legal protections for human rights were developed, moving from internal laws to global frameworks. Creation of the United Nations The United Nations Charter, signed on June 26th 1945, laid the foundation for international peace and security while emphasizing the importance of human rights protection. The aftermath of WWII directly influenced the creation of the UN Charter, which not only aimed to prevent future wars but also to promote and protect human rights globally. The preamble of the UN Charter, adopted in San Francisco on June 26 th 1945, clearly links peace with the protection of human rights: "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small..." This moment was a direct response to the horrors of WWII and reinforced the idea that all human beings have inalienable and inherent rights, because of their human nature. The shock of the war revived an older idea, stemming from the Enlightenment. Indeed, the idea that every human being has natural rights can be traced back to the 18th century Enlightenment period. Thinkers like John Locke argued that individuals possess inherent rights that the state must protect, in exchange for their loyalty (social contract). This idea of natural rights gained prominence, particularly in the context of 2 major crises of the time: the American and French Revolutions (used the idea of natural rights to explain the political evolution they wanted). B) The American revolution (1775 – 1783) The American Revolution marked a turning point in the recognition of human rights and the relationship between government and the governed. The colonies sought to free themselves from British rule, not only to gain independence but to protect what they saw as their natural rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These concepts were deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinkers su ch as John Locke, who argued that government’s legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed and its duty to protect the fundamental rights of individuals. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 is a significant document in the history of human rights because it articulates these principles. It claims that "all men are created equal" and are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights," including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This was one of the first instances where a political entity formally declared that human rights were inherent and should be protected by the state. However, the immediate effects of the American Revolution were limited in their scope. The U.S. Constitution, which came into effect in 1789, initially lacked explicit guarantees of rights, which led to the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Bill of Rights was the first constitutional document that aimed to safeguard civil liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to a fair trial. However, this legal protection of human rights was not extended to all; slavery persisted, and women and indigenous populations were excluded from these protections. In the constitution of the US, there was many reasons not to explicitly listing rights:  For fear that unlisted rights might be interpreted as unimportant or nonexistent.  A risk that a disagreement on the definition on the rights would have jeopardized the adoption of the constitution.  The fact that the federal government is supposed to be limited enough to protect human rights. Despite this, the Bill of Rights became the foundation for the protection of human rights in the U.S., with lasting impacts on the global understanding of these rights. The American bill of rights is the very first document to protect human rights. However, the bill of rights being applied at the state level after the American civil war, it was not a limit to states laws. It in 1803 that the supreme court recognized its power to review decision of public authorities to ensure the respect of these rights. The American revolution is a very significant time because it was the first time that natural rights had legal consequences: it is the first legal text listing human rights and protecting them by the action of the supreme court. C) The French revolution (1789) The French Revolution also played a critical role in shaping the modern conception of human rights. Like the American Revolution, it was driven by the desire to overthrow a tyrannical regime and establish a government founded on equality, liberty, and fraternity. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted in 1789, was a groundbreaking document that proclaimed the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of individuals, and it sought to dismantle the system of privileges that characterized the Ancien Régime. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" The French Revolution was heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, who argued for the sovereignty of the people and the need for a system of governance based on the separation of powers. These philosophical ideas found their way into the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which emphasized that the law should be an expression of the general will and that it must protect the rights of individuals. Thus, During the 18th century, the idea that every human being deserves certain rights emerged. These rights, being natural, inherently belong to all humans simply because they are human. This period marked the confirmation of this idea as a governing principle, laying the groundwork for a new political regime based on protecting these rights. This was a revolution in the way governments were envisioned. The American and French Revolutions are considered pivotal moments in history because they tried to put this idea into practice. D) The United Nations (1948) After World War II, the United Nations Charter reaffirmed faith in human rights, directly extending the liberal philosophies of the American and French revolutions. This period saw a renewed effort to protect human rights on a global scale. In December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). While symbolically important as a universal bill of rights, the UDHR is not legally binding since it is not a treaty, so states are not legally obligated to follow it. Both the UN Charter and the UDHR are significant steps in the development of human rights. However, they remain largely symbolic. The UN Charter only affirms the importance of human rights without listing them, while the UDHR, although a milestone, is not legally enforceable. There was still a need for a legally binding instrument to protect human rights, which was addressed later. After World War II, international law developed in response to the atrocities of the war. This included the growth of international criminal law aimed at punishing the gravest violations of human rights and humanitarian law (law of conflict). This was the first significant step in the development of this area of law, with the establishment of tribunals to address crimes committed during the war, beginning with the Tokyo tribunal in 1946. The idea of international justice had been proposed before WWII:  In 1872, Gustave Moynier suggested creating a tribunal to punish violations of the Geneva Convention, but this was never implemented.  After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles included provisions to try Kaiser Wilhelm II for war crimes, but this too did not materialize.   Between the two World Wars, many proposals for international tribunals were made, but none were successful. It wasn’t until the end of WWII that these tribunals became a reality. In 1945, the Potsdam Conference decided that Nazi leaders would be tried under special rules. The London Agreement of August 1945 led to the establishment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. This tribunal, which followed the American criminal procedure model, was tasked with trying major Nazi officials for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This was the first time the concept of crimes against humanity was officially recognized, including acts like murder, extermination, enslavement and persecution on racial grounds. Similarly, the Tokyo Military Tribunal was established to try Japanese war criminals. At Nuremberg, 24 individuals were indicted, 19 were found guilty, and 12 were sentenced to death. In Tokyo, 28 individuals were indicted, all were found guilty, and 7 were sentenced to death. World War II led to the significant development of human rights and international criminal law. Today, international human rights protection is governed by 3 main bodies of law: - International human rights law - International humanitarian law - International criminal law Key treaties in international human rights law include the ICCPR and the ICESCR. These treaties are binding on states that sign and ratify them, meaning they are required to respect the rights listed within. For instance, France has ratified both the ICCPR and the ICESCR, meaning these documents can be invoked in court to ensure the protection of rights. The ICCPR took 10 years to enter into force, as not enough states initially ratified it. It recognizes the right to life, the punishment of torture, the prohibition of slavery, and was later strengthened by a protocol prohibiting the death penalty. The ICESCR, adopted in 1966 and in force by 1971, currently binds 171 states, though countries like the US have signed but never ratified it. However, the effectiveness of these protections depends heavily on the goodwill of states. There are 3 main limitations to the application of texts protecting human rights: · The ability of states to refuse to sign and ratify international treaties. · The ability of states to adopt reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to treaties after ratification, meaning that states may only be bound to certain obligations. · The ability of states to disregard their international obligations due to a lack of or limitations in enforcement mechanisms. Human Rights Committee To address these challenges, treaties have established enforcement mechanisms. Various types exist within international human rights law. In the UN system, the Human Rights Committee (under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR) control respect for international conventions. This committee is composed of 18 independent experts (layers) elected by state parties every 4 years. The Human Rights Committee has 3 primary enforcement mechanisms:  1. Submission of reports: State parties must submit reports to the committee detailing how they are fulfilling their treaty obligations. 2. Receiving communications from other states: One state party can submit a complaint to the committee that another state party is not respecting the treaty. However, this is limited because states may avoid denouncing others for diplomatic reasons. 3. Receiving communications from individuals or groups: Individuals or groups claiming to be victims of rights violations protected by the ICCPR can submit complaints. Ultimately, the state’s goodwill determines whether a violation exists and whether it must stop. Human Rights Council (UN) In addition to the Human Rights Committee, the Human Rights Council was established in 2006. Composed of representatives from 47 states elected by the UN General Assembly, its main tool is the Universal Periodic Review. This allows the council to periodically examine the human rights situations of all UN member states. While this mechanism does not impose stringent obligations on states, it represents a notable step forward in human rights protection. Evolution of International Criminal Law (ICL) Although international criminal law (ICL) is a distinct body of law, its purpose is to prevent human rights violations. The major crimes it addresses are genocide and torture, with important instruments designed to sanction these violations. ICL emerged after WWII and has developed progressively, often in response to human disasters like the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In February 1993, France and other countries called for the establishment of a criminal court to try crimes committed in Yugoslavia, leading to the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. A similar court, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, was later created to address the crimes committed during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. · International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY): active from 1997 to 2017, it judged more than 100 people. It was the first tribunal to prosecute international crimes, and its work marked a significant step toward accountability for human rights violations. · International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR): the first conviction was pronounced in 1998. This was a groundbreaking moment as it was the first time an international court convicted someone for genocide. Both tribunals no longer exist, but a residual mechanism remains in place because some individuals involved in the crimes are still on the run. The Establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) All these steps led to the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute, which has been ratified by 122 countries. The ICC is composed of 18 judges and 1 prosecutor, all elected by state parties every 9 years. The ICC is a major step forward as it is the first permanent international court with the authority to prosecute 4 types of crimes: · Genocide · Crimes against humanity · War crimes · Crime of aggression Limitations of the ICC Despite its importance, the ICC faces 3 major limitations: 1. State participation: States must agree to sign and ratify the Rome Statute, and they can choose not to. Even if they do ratify it, they must agree to enforce the court’s decisions. 2. Slowness of the process: Trials often take many years, sometimes more than a decade. 3. Selectivity of cases: A large number of the people prosecuted by the ICC are from African countries, leading to accusations of neocolonialism or imperialism. However, we should not underestimate the revolutionary significance of the ICC in the protection of human rights at an international level. 3. Global crisis and the constitutional protection of human rights WWI marked a pivotal moment for the development of human rights at the national level, particularly through the widespread adoption of constitutional protection. This shift can be explained by the way WWII exposed the flaws in the classical conception of democracy, leading to a transformation in how democracy was understood. A) Traditional conception of democracy Before WWII, democracy was widely considered an adequate safeguard of liberty. The traditional model of democracy rested on two pillars: free elections and the separation of powers. Countries that had these features were recognized as democratic. Intellectuals in continental Europe, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed in the sovereignty of the people, who were represented in parliament. This model assumed that because citizens elected their representatives, those representatives would protect liberty through legislation that reflected the people's will. This view, however, was not unanimous even before WWII, though it remained the majoritarian perspective. The right to vote was extended by the late 18th century, reinforcing the belief that elected representatives would ensure liberty and fairness through legislation. The idea was that a system of majority rule naturally protected individual freedoms. The Collapse of the traditional view WWII brought an end to this optimistic view of democracy. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe during the 1930s demonstrated that political institutions, even if democratically elected, could suppress liberties. It became clear that democratic institutions alone were not enough to protect human rights, and that certain fundamental rights needed to be safeguarded from the overreach of the state. In response, countries began to enshrine human rights in formal texts—bills of rights or declarations of rights. These documents set out zones of individual autonomy, limiting the state's ability to infringe on fundamental freedoms. However, merely listing rights was not enough; mechanisms had to be created to ensure their protection. Most of the time, these mechanisms took the form of courts with the power to review public decisions made by any state authority, including parliaments. Judges in these courts became the guardians of democracy, protecting it from its own limitations. Germany as an Example Germany's experience during and after WWII provides a clear example of the transformation of democracy. In the 1920s, Germany was a highly developed nation, and both the Nazi and Communist parties were minor political actors. However, in the 1932 general elections, these two parties won the majority of seats in the German parliament. This was seen as a failure of democracy since both parties were opposed to democratic principles, yet they had gained power through democratic elections. As a result, Hitler became chancellor, the German parliament was dissolved, and new elections gave Hitler an absolute majority, allowing him to establish a dictatorship. To prevent such events from happening again, Germany adopted a new constitution after WWII. This constitution included an extensive bill of rights and established a constitutional court. Articles 1 through 19 of the Basic Law emphasize the protection of human dignity, with Article 1 stating: Art. 1: “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authorities. The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world. The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.” The Basic Law proclaimed many fundamental rights, which are defensive in nature, meaning they are intended to protect individuals from state overreach. All state organs must respect these rights, and any law passed by the state that contradicts these rights can be struck down by the constitutional court. The court has the authority to review public decisions that violate constitutional rights, making it a powerful tool for the protection of individual freedoms. Influence of the German Constitution When the Basic Law was adopted, it was initially intended to be temporary, pending the adoption of a permanent constitution. However, it never changed and has since become the permanent constitution of Germany. This document is seen as a powerful symbol of Germany's rejection of its totalitarian past and is widely regarded as one of the most significant transitions from a dictatorship to a democracy. The German Basic Law has had a profound influence globally. Many countries have adopted similar frameworks to prevent the atrocities of the past from being repeated. After WWII, the belief that a constitutional bill of rights would ensure the respect of human rights became widespread. This development marked a shift in the understanding of democracy and the necessity of constitutional protections for fundamental rights. B) The post-war paradigm The post-WWII period introduced a new understanding of democracy, prompted by the defeat of Nazism and the atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes. This shift solidified the idea that the structural framework of democracy—based on free elections and separation of powers—was insufficient to guarantee the protection of human rights. There was a growing recognition that democracy needed to be founded on deeper principles, including equal citizenship and respect for human dignity. This new conception was famously articulated by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. She argued that: "Human dignity needs a new guarantee which can be found only on a new political principle, in a new law on earth." This quote reflects the need for democratic societies to be organized differently in order to protect human dignity, recognizing that majority rule alone could potentially lead to the abuse of human rights. Mechanisms for Human Rights Protection The core idea of the post-war paradigm is that beyond free elections and majority power, additional mechanisms are required to protect human rights—even against democratically elected institutions. One key development was the power of judicial review, where courts were tasked with ensuring that laws and public decisions remained compatible with fundamental rights. This system of judicial review became central to protecting human rights. Though legislation reflects the will of the people, it must also align with fundamental rights. Courts with the power of judicial review were seen as the guardians of these rights and thus the guardians of a true liberal democracy. Despite its critical role in safeguarding human rights, judicial review has been criticized as having an anti- democratic dimension. This is because it grants significant power to unelected judges, allowing them to overrule decisions made by elected representatives. After WWII, this was justified by the need to prevent democratic institutions from falling into totalitarianism or suppressing rights, as seen in Nazi Germany. Redefining Democracy The post-war paradigm also redefined democracy itself. In the traditional view, democracy was primarily about free elections and the separation of powers. However, the new, substantive definition of democracy emphasized that true democracy also required a robust system of fundamental rights and the judicial mechanisms to protect them. Courts that could perform judicial reviews were essential for maintaining this balance. This redefinition spread globally. Many post-war constitutions, including those in Portugal, Latin America, and elsewhere, included bills of rights and systems of judicial review. These constitutions were designed to protect human rights in ways that traditional democratic structures had failed to do in the past. Summary: The post-war paradigm reflects a fundamental change in the understanding of democracy, rooted in the recognition of natural human rights as inherent to all individuals. These rights required legal protection, and without such protection, they would not be respected. This realization led to the integration of judicial review and constitutional safeguards to ensure that human rights would not be violated, even in democratic societies.  —HUMAN RIGHTS AND GLOBAL CRISIS— 4 e année, S1, amphi Chapter 1: terrorism and human rights 1. Is Terrorism a Global Crisis? A) Definition of Terrorism There is no unique or universal definition of terrorism. Globally, terrorism can be understood as “a method of coercion that utilizes or threatens to utilize violence in order to spread fear and to attain political or ideological goals”. B) History of Terrorism Origins The use of terrorism by groups is ancient, dating back at least to the first century. 3 groups are linked as the first users of terrorism: · The Thugs · The Zealots · The Assassins They were movements that rebelled against the established political power of their time, choosing violence to assert themselves. Thus, terrorism is not a new method; its premises can be traced back to ancient history. Initially, the term terrorism described a very French phenomenon during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, when the government directed violence against anyone suspected of being an enemy of the revolution. People deemed too moderate were suspected enemies. During that period, terror was an instrument of government. · “The revolution is the war of liberty against its enemies”; “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible.” Robespierre · “Oh Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name?” Madame Roland, before her execution A parallel can be made with the US situation. During founding of the US, the Sons of Liberty was a group that used violence to discourage colonies still loyal to the king. This violence marked the beginning of the American revolution. Modern terrorism Modern terrorism spread rapidly around the world and can be considered as a global phenomenon. It can be traced back to the 19th century when many states simultaneously experienced similar activity. This simultaneity was due to the development of communication, which enabled various groups from different countries to learn from each other and communicate. This transformed terrorism into a global phenomenon, a process that continues today as technology develops further. The main purpose of modern terrorism is revolution. In some cases, revolution means secession and national self-determination, grounded in the idea that people can and should govern themselves. The fight for self-government can sometimes use violent means, largely inspired by the American and French revolutions. Sometimes, revolution aims to change the form of government, with the goal of radically reconstructing authority and creating a new state. David Rapoport identified 4 waves of terrorism: · First wave (1880s – 1930s): anarchist wave · Second wave (post WWII): anti-colonial wave · Third wave (1960s – 1980s): new left wave · Fourth wave (1979 – present): religious wave Today, the oldest terrorism organization still active is the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Previously, the Russian group Narodnaya Volya ("the people’s will") was considered the first modern terrorist group. They believed meetings and demonstrations were insufficient to change the political order, so they resorted to violence, even death. They argued for a new form of communication that would be heard and respected, leading to terrorism being described as both fascinating and uniting people. This group targeted assassination: members selected public figures to murder in order to draw public attention to the need for political regime change. They succeeded in assassinating Russian Tsar Alexander II in 1881. First wave This first wave of terrorism was linked to 19th-century revolutionary movements, influenced by intellectuals like Proudhon, Marx, and Bakunin, who promoted anti-state ideas. A significant influence came from German revolutionary Karl Heinzen, who was the first to articulate the idea that individuals could use violence to bring about political change. In a pamphlet titled Mord und Freiheit (1853), he argued that if one wished to change a political organization, violence and even murder could be justified. At that time, the primary method for spreading terror for political change was targeted assassination. One notable example of targeted assassination is that of Tsar Alexander II. This strategy was associated with the belief that targeting a state official required a very strong commitment to the cause. This phenomenon is often referred to as "propaganda by the deed." The advantage of this form of terrorism is that it does not necessarily involve mass death. Another significant example is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in June 1914 in Sarajevo, which led to World War I. The development of mass communication technologies allowed news events and ideas to be disseminated over long distances. Transportation also improved during this period. These two phenomena explain why terrorism expanded significantly, enabling Russian revolutionaries to travel to various countries. This marked the beginning of a global dimension of terrorism, although it was primarily limited to Western Europe. The emergence of this first form of modern terrorism also led to the development of state responses to the threat of terrorism. Western states attempted to respond to terrorism with new legal mechanisms for cooperation. This marked the beginning of the development of tools such as immigration controls and extradition treaties, allowing states to agree on prosecuting and trial terrorists. However, these measures also targeted specific alliances. While states developed responses and cooperation to tackle terrorism, there was a growing concern that accusations of political offenses could lead to slippery slopes in judicial practices. Some states decided to refuse the extradition of individuals suspected of political crimes. For instance, France has a long tradition of refusing to extradite individuals accused of political offenses committed in other countries, making it difficult to distinguish between political and terrorist crimes; this often depends on how events are labeled. An example of this occurred in France in 1927, when King Alexander I of Yugoslavia and a French minister were assassinated in Marseille. Those accused of their murder had extradition requests denied by French authorities on the grounds that the offenses were political. In response to the limitations on cooperation between states, the League of Nations attempted to draft a convention on terrorism to establish an international jurisdiction for prosecuting crimes identified as terrorism. However, this initiative was never realized due to the outbreak of World War II. This was the very first development of public powers in relation to terrorism. Second wave World War II halted these initial attempts. After the war, a second wave of terrorism emerged, characterized by liberation fighters who claimed the right to use direct action to pursue their self- determination. The United Nations Charter was adopted, explicitly addressing the right to self- determination, which terrorists used to justify their actions. Following World War II, there was a surge in anti-colonial movements, and this argument was employed by liberation fighters who refused to be labeled as terrorists to avoid discredit. However, states insisted on recognizing them as terrorists. This marked a shift from the first wave to the second wave, emphasizing the right to self-determination. Additionally, there was a change in the methods employed by terrorists. The new wave believed that targeted assassinations were not effective means to achieve their goals. Instead, they adopted guerrilla tactics, aiming to eliminate police forces, which often led to the replacement of police by political authorities. This shift from classic police to military forces for security would have significant consequences, resulting in more atrocities and violence, and ultimately increasing popular support for terrorists. In this wave, the global dimension of the movement was largely due to the worldwide decolonization movement. Third wave The third wave of terrorism quickly emerged within the context of the Cold War, particularly in the 1960s. During this period, many groups in the Western world formed to support the masses in the Third World. These groups were strongly anti-imperialist and communist. Examples include the Brigade Rosse, the IRA, Action Directe, and the FLNC. Within some of these organizations, there was a combination of leftist ideology and nationalism, with the belief that they were also fighting for self-government. This dual dimension reflected a strong radical leftism alongside a commitment to independence. The global dimension of this wave was not only due to the effectiveness of these movements but also because of the strong connections between them. Meetings among these groups became common, allowing them to share ideas, tactics, and methods. This third wave can be distinguished by the methods employed, including attacks on foreign embassies and airline hijackings. These tactics reflected a new inspiration for spectacular acts, amplified by the rise of mass media communication. The dramatic nature of these attacks served both spectacular and pragmatic purposes, such as hostage-taking. One of the most memorable hostage situations was the 1979 kidnapping of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro; the government’s refusal to negotiate ultimately led to his murder. Similarly, the attacks on the Nicaraguan Congress and the Colombian Supreme Court in 1985 resulted in government refusals to negotiate, leading to killings. A significant motivation for these groups was the financial aspect of hostage-taking, as they sought to raise funds to liberate hostages. By the 1980s, the third wave of terrorism began to shrink as international cooperation became increasingly effective in addressing the issue. Fourth wave The fourth wave of terrorism is characterized by its religious motivations, generally considered to have begun in the late 1970s. In earlier waves, a religious dimension was present, often serving as a unifying factor within groups, but these groups typically aimed to establish secular states. In contrast, the fourth wave places a stronger emphasis on religious ideology. Islam is often seen as the most visible religion associated with this wave, but it is important to recognize that other religious communities have also produced terrorist groups. For example, there have been instances of Jewish and Christian terrorism. Among Christian terrorists, movements often draw on a racial interpretation of the Bible, with beliefs centered around the idea that they are awaiting a second coming of God. For these groups, this event is envisioned as the beginning of a new world in which nonwhite individuals will be enslaved to serve white people. Evolution of modern terrorism The evolution of terrorism is marked by the resurgence of far-right terrorism. A far-right terrorism is a violent movement associated with political ideology characterized by several elements, including: · Strongly nationalist · Fascist · Racist · Anti-immigration sentiments · Nativism · Strong xenophobia This is not a new phenomenon; for instance, the Ku Klux Klan historically targeted African Americans. In recent years, several major terrorist attacks have been linked to far-right terrorism. Notable examples include the bombing in Bologna in 1980, the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, the Oslo and Utøya attacks in Norway in 2011, and the Christchurch attack in 2019. We are witnessing an increase in far-right shouting, often by individuals radicalized online. This type of terrorism has grown alongside rising political unrest. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in popular support for the use of violence to achieve political ends; some polls indicate that up to 30% of respondents believe it is acceptable to use violence for political change. The idea of using violence and force for political purposes is very old. Since the 19th century, terrorism has acquired a global dimension due to advancements in technology and the pervasive nature of terrorist attacks. Typology of terrorism The typology of terrorism encompasses a diverse range of phenomena, from individual actions to what some scholars label as cooperative efforts. The means employed by terrorist groups are also varied. Terrorist attacks can be broadly categorized into two main types. In the past, the focus was primarily on targeted attacks; however, today there is a marked increase in indiscriminate violence. In these recent attacks, victims are not specifically chosen; rather, they happen to be present at the location during the time of the attack. This approach heightens the fear of potential attacks within the general population. The fundamental goal of terrorism is to instill fear in order to gain political power and effect change. This situation has been described by Cindy Combs as “psychological warfare.” C) Current State of Terrorism The current state of terrorism has undergone significant changes, particularly evident in 2023. After a decline in the number of attacks by terrorist groups, there was a notable surge, with a total of 8,352 attacks recorded worldwide in 2023—an increase of 22% and the highest level since 2017. While the total number of attacks has fallen to the lowest level since 2009, the lethality of these attacks has increased, resulting in more deaths globally. Another notable change in 2023 is the situation in Afghanistan, which for a long time was the most impacted country by terrorism. However, there was a sharp decrease in terrorist activity there this year. Similarly, Iraq is no longer among the 10 countries most affected by terrorism for the first time. The reduction in violence in Afghanistan is largely attributed to the Taliban's takeover; violence committed by the Taliban is considered state violence and thus not classified as terrorism according to some definitions. In sub-Saharan Africa, the region recorded the highest number of deaths due to terrorism for the seventh consecutive year, with Burkina Faso currently being the most affected country. Terrorist activity remains highly concentrated, with just ten countries accounting for nearly 90% of terrorist-related deaths in 2023. In Western countries, the number of attacks has continued to decline since 2017. Notably, political terrorism has become more prominent than religious terrorism, with attacks often perpetrated by individuals who do not have direct affiliations with established terrorist groups. Terrorist activity has gone through several distinct phases. Following the terrorist attacks of 2001, most activity was concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan due to allied interventions, with significant impacts also seen in Pakistan between 2008 and 2020. After the Arab Spring, there was a rise in terrorism across the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Iraq, peaking in 2015. Since then, terrorism has generally declined, with Afghanistan being the most affected country until the Taliban regained control of the government. In the last four years, sub-Saharan Africa has experienced a significant increase in terrorist activity, especially in Burkina Faso and Somalia, which today has more deaths from terrorism than any other region in the world. The most significant shift has been from the Middle East to the Sahel region regarding the epicenter of terrorist activity. Globally, the main threats have been the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, with the rise of the Islamic State and Boko Haram becoming significant by 2013. Taliban: Founded in 1994 by Mohammad Omar, the Taliban emerged as a mixture of Mujahedeen fighters and Pashtun tribesmen. They ruled Afghanistan until 2001, when the U.S. invasion overthrew them. After the invasion, the Taliban regrouped across borders and became known as the "neo-Taliban." They regained control of Afghanistan in August 2021 and are no longer considered a terrorist group by some definitions. Before 2021, they targeted military and police personnel, believing that by striking these forces, they could destabilize the state. Al-Quaeda: Formed in 1988 by Usama bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, Al-Qaeda gained prominence during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, promoting international jihad. They became a main target in the U.S. war on terror launched by President Bush after the 9/11 attacks. Following the Western military campaign, Al-Qaeda adopted a decentralized military structure. Islamic State (IS): The IS originated as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda in Iraq but split from the group in 2010 due to disagreements over tactics. In 2013, it rebranded itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Daesh. The IS declared itself a caliphate in 2014 and captured significant territories in Iraq and Syria by the end of 2015. Although it lost much of this territory by 2019—following the deaths of leaders like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi at the hands of U.S. forces—it continues to operate, particularly in the Sahel region. The IS is now one of the deadliest terrorist organizations, with many sources of funding and numerous affiliate groups worldwide. Boko Haram: Formally known as Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, Boko Haram was founded in 2002 in Nigeria. It gained strength in 2009, particularly in the Lake Chad region of West Africa. The group opposes the secular government and Western influence, targeting educational institutions. Boko Haram has links with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. —— Due to their violent actions, these groups are among the deadliest in the world, prompting the UN to place them on its list of targeted sanctions. While there is no universal list of terrorist organizations, the UN maintains a list of sanctioned individuals and groups. Non-state actors, including the Taliban, were initially included on this list after refusing to surrender Osama bin Laden. The UN Security Council designated the Taliban as a terrorist group due to their actions. A common characteristic among these groups is the transnational nature of contemporary terrorism. Terrorism can be defined as the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by non-state actors to achieve political, economic, religious, or social goals. This is often accomplished through fear, coercion, or intimidation. “Today, more than ever before, threats are interrelated and a threat to one is a threat to all. The mutual vulnerability of weak and strong has never been clearer... No State, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today’s threats. Every State requires the cooperation of other States to make itself secure.” The United Nations General Assembly, 2004 2. What Links between Terrorism and Human Rights? The relationship between terrorism and human rights is complex, and three main types of connections can be identified: 1. Terrorism as an Exercise of Human Rights 2. Terrorism as a Threat to Human Rights 3. Terrorism Fostered by Human Rights Abuses A) Terrorism as an exercise of the human rights? In the definition of terrorism, the main purpose is often revolutionary in nature—aiming to establish new authority or gain independence for a particular group. Given that terrorism can be viewed as a form of revolution, one might question whether it can be considered an exercise of the right to rebellion against oppression or an expression of the right to self-determination. 1/ the right to rebellion The right to rebellion is a concept that has been articulated in various declarations of rights, such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789. However, it is an idea with much older roots, found in Greek and Roman antiquity, and it has evolved within modern natural rights theory. In both contexts, the underlying principle is that if a government does not respect fundamental rights, it loses its legitimacy and can be overthrown. Many philosophers have argued that disobedience can be legitimate if a government fails to uphold these principles. For instance, Thomas Aquinas advocated for the right to overthrow a tyrannical ruler. This idea was later endorsed by monarchists who argued that if a king behaves unjustly, it is not obligatory to follow his rules. The notion of the right to rebellion was more fully developed during the Enlightenment, particularly through the social contract theory. According to this theory, individuals possess certain liberties in a state of nature, and they consent to limit some of these freedoms in order to create a government that ensures their security. However, if the government fails to respect essential liberties, citizens have the right to disobey and even overthrow it. John Locke strongly endorsed this idea, famously stating that when the government breaches its social contract, the people may rightfully rebel. This right to rebellion also served as a justification for the independence of the United States from the British Empire, a sentiment enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Similarly, the French Declaration of 1789, particularly in its Article 2, acknowledges this right, marking it as a fundamental principle within a constitutional framework. In Germany, Article 20 of the Basic Law also reflects this notion. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) does not explicitly recognize the right to rebellion, it implies that if human rights are not protected, rebellion against tyranny may be justified. In some cases, rebellion can be an effective means of resistance. However, there is an inherent paradox in recognizing the right to rebellion. While the law aims to uphold respect for rights, it also provides for the potential non-respect of these rights. This duality can disturb the legal order, as some scholars suggest that it has the potential to destabilize legal structures. The political dimension of qualifying acts of terrorism is significant. An action may be seen as an exercise of the right to rebellion, which can alter perceptions of its legitimacy. For example, the French Resistance was once labeled as terrorist by the Vichy government but is now celebrated as national heroes. The classification of such actions often depends on the outcomes of historical conflicts, highlighting that whether an act is deemed terrorism can vary based on the prevailing political narrative. This political dimension should not be overlooked. We can underline 2 main criteria to distinguish between terrorism and rebellion: 1/ the target of the action: In the case of rebellion, the target may be regime officials rather than civilians, even though targeting civilians can have symbolic importance (this is not a strict criterion). 2/ the national dimension of the action: It is easier to justify an action as a rebellion if it is aimed at saving the people of your country from a tyrannical regime. A more important criterion may be the justification for using certain actions to oppose tyrannical decisions or government. This leads to the idea of civil disobedience, which is usually seen as the only legitimate form of rebellion. Civil disobedience involves passive resistance — refusing to follow government orders without resorting to violence. This concept was notably developed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971). Additionally, the writings of Henry David Thoreau are influential on this topic. In his famous essay on civil disobedience, Thoreau justified his refusal to pay taxes to the U.S. government because the money was used to support slavery, which he vehemently opposed. This idea of civil disobedience is often associated with the myth of Antigone. Antigone, the daughter of the King of Thebes, refused to obey the law that forbade her from burying her brother in a traditional manner. She considered this law immoral because it would prevent her brother from reaching the afterlife, so she chose to disobey. The core of civil disobedience is the violation of laws to compel the government to change laws deemed immoral. The modern understanding of civil disobedience was shaped by Mahatma Gandhi, who used it against British colonial rule in India. Gandhi's campaign is one of the most well-known and successful examples of civil disobedience, leading to India’s independence. Similarly, the American civil rights movement is another historical instance where civil disobedience was used to end racial segregation. Martin Luther King Jr. was a leading advocate of non-violent protest to secure civil rights and racial equality, as was Rosa Parks, who famously refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. In more contemporary contexts, civil disobedience can be seen in the actions of whistleblowers, who disclose government secrets for moral reasons, challenging state authority in pursuit of transparency and justice. In conclusion, terrorism may, under certain circumstances, be framed as a legitimate exercise of the right to rebellion. 2/ the right of peoples to self-determination Another human right sometimes invoked in discussions of terrorism is the right of peoples to self- determination. Terrorism often aims to change governments within a state or achieve independence from a previous governing power. This raises the question: Can terrorism be seen as an exercise of the right to self- determination? The right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law, considered by some as a jus cogens norm, meaning it must be respected by all states. Historically, this right has been most commonly exercised in the context of decolonization, particularly after the 1950s. But it first emerged during the French Revolution as the principle of nationality, which held that if a group is recognized as a nation, it has the right to its own state. This idea was notably applied in the unifications of Italy and Germany and later evolved into the modern right to self-determination, which became central to decolonization efforts in the 20th century. In contemporary legal frameworks, the UN Charter refers to the right of self-determination in its preamble, emphasizing the equality of all peoples, and explicitly in Article 55. Furthermore, it is directly mentioned in Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (the same article in both treaties). These texts state: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development." This right implies that colonized peoples have the right to achieve independence and freely organize their political society. International recognition is crucial to the success of movements seeking to exercise this right. Historically, the United States was a strong supporter of the right to self-determination, viewing it as a way to challenge the influence of the Western colonial powers. However, this right is typically applicable in specific colonial contexts. It does not compel states to recognize independence movements within their own borders. For example, demands for independence by regions like Catalonia or Corsica cannot claim this right because they are not considered colonial situations. International law restricts the application of self-determination to instances of colonization. The UN still recognizes that colonization persists in certain territories, with France being considered a colonial power due to its overseas territories. Currently, the UN identifies France, the UK, and the US as the primary colonial powers. Regarding the connection between self-determination and terrorism, contemporary terrorist actions cannot generally be considered exercises of the right to self-determination, as most of these actions are not focused on decolonization struggles. Terrorism as fostered by human rights abuses – terrorism as a violation of human rights Many official UN reports emphasize that terrorist actions are more likely to develop in contexts where there are significant human rights violations. For this reason, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that promoting and protecting human rights globally is an essential means of preventing terrorism. The UN Secretary-General has identified several key factors, or drivers, that can contribute to the rise of terrorism: · Lack of socio-economic opportunities · Marginalization and discrimination · Poor governance, violations of human rights and of the rule of law · Prolonged and unresolved conflicts · Radicalization in prisons None of these drivers of violence should be viewed in isolation. Often, several factors work together, creating an environment in which terrorism can thrive. By addressing these underlying causes, especially through the promotion of human rights and good governance, the international community can reduce the likelihood of terrorism emerging. B) Terrorism as a violation to human rights The primary human rights violated by terrorism are the right to life and the right to physical integrity. 1/ the right to life and the right to physical integrity In France, neither of these rights is explicitly recognized at the constitutional level. The French constitutional framework does not provide direct recognition of these rights. The only related principle acknowledged is the principle of human dignity, which was established by the French Constitutional Court in 1994. Therefore, the protection of life is mainly addressed through legislative acts, particularly Article 16 of the French Civil Code, which ensures the primacy of the individual, forbids violations of human dignity, and protects the respect of human beings from the beginning of life. This French position is somewhat unique because, at the international level, the protection of life and physical integrity is often central to legal systems. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 dedicates several articles to these protections: · Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. · Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. · Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. · Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. These rights are considered inviolable and non-derogable. They are seen as absolute rights, though the UDHR itself is not legally binding, making this recognition largely symbolic. However, these rights are also explicitly found in legally binding treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966): · Article 4.2: No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 · may be made under this provision. · Article 6.1: Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. · Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. · Article 8.1: No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited. · Article 8.2: No one shall be held in servitude. Similar provisions can be found in more specific treaties, such as the Convention Against Torture (1984): · Article 1.1: For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. · Article 2.1: Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. · Article 2.2: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. · Article 2.3: An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. At the regional level, in Europe, these rights are also protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (1950): · Article 2: Right to life. 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. · Article 3: Prohibition of torture. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. · Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labor. 1. No one shall be held in slave or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to performed forced or compulsory labor. These rights are regarded as absolute and essential across international and regional human rights instruments. Several international and regional authorities have emphasized the importance of the right to life:  · UN Economic and Social Council: “The right to life is the most important and basic of human rights. It is the foundation from which all human rights spring. If it is infringed, its effects are irreversible". · Human rights Committee (1985, Barboream): “The supreme right of every human being”. · European court of human rights (2001, Streletz, Kessler and Krentz v. Germany): “The supreme value in the human rights field”. These rights are recognized as norms of jus cogens, meaning they must be respected by all states, even those that have not ratified the relevant treaties. Initially, these rights were understood as negative rights, obliging states not to violate them (i.e., not to kill or harm individuals). However, over time, a positive obligation has emerged. Now, states must also actively protect life and physical integrity, not only from their own actions but also from violations committed by others. This requires states to adopt laws criminalizing violations of these rights (e.g., prohibiting murder) and to ensure that the judicial system is functional, so that any violation is properly addressed and punished. This transformation from negative to positive obligations marks a significant development in the understanding of human rights protections. 2/ the International Criminal System The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998 and came into force in 2002 after more than 60 countries ratified it. The ICC prosecutes individuals for 4 core international crimes: 1/ crimes of genocide: genocide refers to crimes committed with the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It can be done by various actions, including: · Killing its members of the group, · Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, · Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, · Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, · Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 2/ crimes against humanity: defined as serious violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population. The Rome Statute established a list of 15 forms of crimes against humanity, including: · Murder, · Rape, · Imprisonment, · Enforced disappearances, · Enslavement (particularly of women and children), · Sexual slavery, · Torture, · Apartheid, · Deportation. 3/ war crimes: war crimes are serious breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed conflict. It includes, for instance: · The use of child soldiers, · The killing of persons such as civilians or prisoners of war, · Intentionally directing attacks against hospitals, historic monuments, or building dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes. 4/ crimes of aggression: refer to the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty integrity or independence of another State. However, this crime is not applicable to terrorist activities. The ICC jurisdiction: The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over these four crimes if they were committed after 2002 by a state party or on the territory of a state party. There are specific conditions under which the court operates: · The ICC does not prosecute children under the age of 18. · The prosecutor may initiate an investigation if there is sufficient evidence. · The ICC lacks its own police force or enforcement body, relying on the cooperation of countries to arrest suspects, detain them, and ensure that court decisions are enforced. · Typically, the ICC intervenes when crimes are committed by a state party or an individual within a state party. But there are two additional situations where the ICC can exercise jurisdiction: firstly, when crimes are committed by a non-party state but that state accepts the ICC's jurisdiction, and secondly when the UN Security Council refers a situation to the ICC, even if the court does not normally have jurisdiction. · Sentencing: possible sentences include up to 30 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment for the most serious offenses. This system represents a major international effort to ensure accountability for grave human rights violations and acts as a key institution for promoting global justice. The process in the ICC: Preliminary · The Office of the Prosecutor determines if there is sufficient evidence of the examination crime and its gravity. · It evaluates whether national jurisdictions have intervened, as the ICC only acts if there is a lack of national proceedings concerning the event. · The Office of the Prosecutor also assesses whether pursuing the case would serve the interests of justice and the victims. Investigation · If the case passes the preliminary examination, investigations begin to uncover the truth about the event. · During this stage, the prosecution may request ICC judges to issue an arrest warrant or a summons to appear. Pre-trial · In the pre-trial stage, the suspect is brought before the court. · Pre-trial judges confirm the identity of the accused and ensure they understand the charges. Trial · The trial is conducted before three judges. · The prosecution presents evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. · The judges consider all the evidence, then issue a verdict and potentially a sentence. Current work of the ICC & terrorist activities: The Nigerian situation involving Boko Haram is currently in the preliminary examination phase at the ICC. Boko Haram, a militant group, has been launching attacks on civilian populations in Nigeria since 2009. It is believed that the group committed crimes against humanity, including acts of sexual violence. In 2016, the ICC started investigating these acts of violence, particularly focusing on the treatment of women. One of the key considerations for the ICC’s involvement was determining whether Nigeria had taken sufficient legal actions to address these crimes. However, it was concluded that the state’s actions were limited, which kept the case within the jurisdiction of the ICC. In December 2020, the ICC prosecutor announced the completion of the preliminary investigation, stating that there was reasonable evidence to believe that crimes against humanity had been committed. The next step would involve obtaining authorization to open a full investigation. However, since that announcement, the case has remained in a grey zone, as Nigerian authorities pledged to start their own investigations and prosecutions. As a result, the ICC is currently on hold, awaiting further actions from Nigeria’s legal system. This reflects one of the limitations of the ICC, as even the initial phase can take a significant amount of time. Another notable example of the ICC’s involvement in terrorism-related cases is the Al Hassan case, which highlights the challenges of lengthy legal processes. Al Hassan, a member of the militant group Ansar Eddine (affiliated with Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb), was arrested in March 2018 for his role in crimes committed in Mali between 2012 and 2013. These crimes included systematic attacks on civilians, torture, rape, and the destruction of religious buildings in Timbuktu. Al Hassan also participated in forced marriages as part of these crimes. The government of Mali referred the case to the ICC in 2012, and an arrest warrant was issued in 2018. Al Hassan was quickly arrested, and in July 2020, the pre-trial phase began, where he was formally presented to the court. The trial itself commenced shortly thereafter with the reading of charges. However, the process has been lengthy, and as of June 2024, it has taken four years for the court to proceed with the trial. Although Al Hassan was convicted of some charges, the final verdict has yet to be issued, and the case could still be subject to appeal. The drawn-out nature of this case illustrates the ICC’s limitation in dealing with terrorist activities, as its processes are often lengthy. The ICC is also intended to serve as a complementary jurisdicti on, meaning that national authorities are primarily responsible for pursuing terrorism cases. 3/ Trial by national courts (example of the trials of 9/11/2001 in the US) The trials surrounding the 9/11 attacks are significant both due to the scale of the attack and the complexity it presented for US authorities in prosecuting those involved. The attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killed nearly 3,000 people, making it one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in modern history. Five men were accused of conspiring to carry out the attacks and were charged with conspiracy, murder, terrorism, and faced the possibility of the death penalty. The trial process officially began in 2012, but the first judicial hearing did not take place until 2021. As of July 2024, the primary defendant and three of the five accused had agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and murder in exchange for life sentences, avoiding a full trial. This plea deal between the prosecution and the accused effectively concluded the case for most of the defendants. Why did the trial take so long? One of the key reasons for the delay was that the five accused were held in CIA black sites for years, meaning they were detained outside of any legal framework. Captured in Pakistan in 2002, they were held in secret prisons until 2006, during which time they were subjected to torture. Under US law, evidence obtained through torture cannot be used in court, so the interrogations conducted prior to 2006 were invalid. Following their transfer to Guantanamo Bay, the accused were interrogated again without torture, but the legal process lost valuable years as a result. In 2006, the legal proceedings formally began, and the accused were charged in 2008. However, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 led to further delays. One of Obama’s campaign promises was to close Guantanamo, which required a reevaluation of each detainee’s case. These evaluations pushed the start of the trial to 2012. Even after the trial began, numerous procedural issues had to be addressed before the trial could proceed. The nature of the charges and the location of Guantanamo further complicated matters. Bad weather conditions sometimes prevented court personnel from reaching Guantanamo, and the COVID-19 pandemic caused additional delays. In the end, instead of a full trial for all the accused, three of the five accepted plea deals. This case highlights the significant challenges even a powerful state like the US faces in bringing terrorists to justice. Despite strong judicial systems, the complexity of terrorist prosecutions often leads to extended timelines, delays, and negotiated outcomes rather than traditional trials. 3. What Links between Responses to Terrorism and Human Rights? The response of states and the international community to terrorism is complex, often justified by the right to life and physical integrity. However, these responses are frequently triggered by human rights violations as well. A) The international framework 1. The UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy International organizations, particularly the United Nations (UN), have recognized the need for a global framework to combat terrorism more effectively. Terrorism is seen as a global crisis that requires international action. In 2006, the UN adopted the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which is reviewed and updated every two years to adapt to the evolving nature of terrorism. All UN member states participate in this strategy, making it the only global instrument specifically designed to counter terrorism by strengthening collective strategies. The strategy emphasizes two fundamental elements: the promotion and protection of human rights for all, and adherence to the rule of law. There is a clear link between protecting human rights and preventing terrorism. The strategy operates on two levels: reactive and preventive. 1/ Reactive Dimension: This dimension provides a general framework guiding states on how to tackle terrorism and respond to terrorist attacks. It emphasizes international cooperation and the principle of "extradite or prosecute," meaning that no state should be a safe haven for terrorists. Anyone who supports or participates in terrorism must either be extradited to face prosecution or tried in the state where the crime occurred. This reflects the notion that terrorists are to be treated as criminals and punished under national criminal laws. Terrorism is a violation of fundamental rights, such as the right to life and physical integrity. Initially, these rights were conceived as obligations on states to refrain from torturing or killing individuals (negative obligations). Over time, this evolved into positive obligations, where states are also required to prevent others from committing acts of torture or murder. This has concrete implications: states must establish effective criminal justice systems to prosecute those who commit such crimes, including terrorist acts. 2/ Preventive Dimension: This dimension aims to prevent terrorism from occurring in the first place. It has become a crucial focus of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. States are strongly encouraged to use non-coercive methods to dissuade individuals and groups from turning to violence to achieve their goals. This requires the development of public policies to prevent radicalization, with education and empowerment playing key roles. States are encouraged to foster environments where people can actively participate in political decisions, thereby reducing the appeal of violent extremism. Since 2015, the UN has increasingly emphasized the importance of education, tolerance, and the promotion of peaceful coexistence as key tools in combating terrorism. In addition to these preventive efforts, states must also take concrete measures to uphold the rule of law, repeal discriminatory legislation, and combat marginalization and exclusion through public policies. The preventive dimension was further developed in the UN's 2016 Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, which outlines specific measures states should take to reduce the risk of terrorism. These include establishing effective criminal justice systems to deter terrorism, combating discrimination, and promoting education and tolerance to enable broader participation in society. This UN strategy is significant because it provides a comprehensive framework representing a global consensus on addressing terrorism. However, as it is a resolution, it is not legally binding on states. Therefore, more attention must be given to binding legal instruments that impose concrete obligations on countries 2. The legal sources underpinning the global strategy 1/ international treaties: The first key source of the global strategy against terrorism includes international treaties and international law. These are binding legal sources for states. One of the most important documents is the UN Charter, which has the purpose of maintaining international peace and security, with terrorism recognized as a threat to international security. A fundamental principle of the UN Charter is that states should not use military force against non-state terrorist actors located in the territory of another state. However, this principle is not always respected. In addition, general international human rights treaties can pose constraints on states when responding to terrorism. Specific treaties have been adopted in response to particular terrorist incidents, such as treaties on hostage-taking, terrorist bombing, the financing of terrorism, and civil aviation. These treaties do not precisely define what terrorism is, but they create specific obligations on state parties, such as criminalizing certain offenses in their national legal systems and establishing mechanisms to foster international cooperation. Nevertheless, these treaties are only binding on states if they are ratified and applied. Many states refuse to ratify or apply these treaties, or they make reservations to certain parts. Thus, the strength of international agreements should not be overestimated. 2/ Customary international law: Customary international law consists of rules of law derived from the generally consistent conduct of states, based on the belief that the law requires them to act in a certain way. Two criteria must be met to identify a customary international rule: there must be a pattern of conduct by states (objective criterion) and a belief that there is a legal obligation to act in that way (subjective criterion). Among these customary rules, some principles are considered jus cogens norms. These are rules that are considered absolute and cannot be violated, even in the context of responding to terrorism. Examples include the prohibition of torture and crimes against humanity. 3/ UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions : The UN Security Council and the General Assembly are two key organs of the UN with complementary functions. The Security Council is responsible for maintaining peace and security, while the General Assembly ensures that the Security Council's actions are consistent with UN principles, especially regarding human rights. Their approaches to terrorism have evolved over time. From the early years of the UN until the 1980s, the General Assembly focused on the fight for decolonization, debating whether those involved in decolonization efforts should be considered terrorists. In the 1990s, the focus shifted towards developing principles for guiding international criminal law in response to terrorism. Following 9/11, the Security Council became heavily involved in the fight against terrorism, justifying its actions by stating that terrorism is a threat to peace and security. Unlike General Assembly resolutions, which have no binding force, Security Council resolutions can be legally binding for states. Resolutions adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter grant the Security Council the competence to act for peace and against acts of aggression. Conclusion: The international legal framework surrounding terrorism is robust and multi-layered, with treaties, customary law, and UN resolutions playing critical roles. However, the effectiveness of these rules is often deficient, as many states fail to fully comply with their obligations. A common theme in today's international responses to terrorism is the emphasis on respecting human rights, which is seen as a critical element in successfully countering terrorism. States efforts to combat terrorism can “entail the danger that some States may adopt a sequencing approach which places the maintenance of security ahead the protection of human rights” (UNHCHR). B) States’ responses to terrorism The declaration of a state of emergency is a tool that states can use not only in the context of terrorism but also in response to any serious event. It is a tempting option because it allows states to derogate from ordinary rules. The main idea is that in a situation of emergency, states cannot follow normal legal obligations, which presents a danger to legality and the rule of law. This can put individual liberties at risk. As Thomas Jefferson famously stated, "He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both." Declaring a state of emergency allows the government to derogate from ordinary rules and procedures to handle crises. This can be justified in certain situations, but it also means that constitutional rules can be disregarded. Typically, a state of emergency is coupled with a significant extension of power in the hands of the executive branch, often leading to a decrease in the power of the parliament. This shift concentrates authority in the executive, leading to restrictions on human rights and individual liberties. There is often a rebalancing of power between the executive and legislative branches. In democratic states, parliament traditionally has more power because it represents the nation. Especially when decisions affect human rights, such decisions are ideally made in parliament, where there can be democratic debate. The use of emergency powers can also have a broader impact on the democratic nature of the state, leading to two main consequences: a shift of power from the legislative to the executive, and restrictions on human rights. In some cases, states of emergency can also be used for repressive government policies. While sometimes necessary to tackle genuine crises, they can also be exploited as a means to seize power. One of the most extreme examples is Germany just before World War II, when the Third Reich was established through a declaration of a state of emergency. The historical roots of the state of emergency can be traced back to the Roman context, specifically the use of dictatorship. In ancient Rome, a dictator was nominated in exceptional circumstances, such as during an external attack or internal rebellion. This nomination was for a limited time, and the dictator was supposed to give up power once the crisis ended. The Roman tradition emphasized temporal limitations and constitutional constraints on the use of such power. Importantly, the recognition of a crisis was not made by the dictator. Today, it is often the government itself that determines whether there is a crisis, and the same government then benefits from the increased power. The Roman dictatorship was actually more constrained than modern states of emergency. Another inspiration for modern states of emergency comes from Napoleon’s concept of the "state of siege," which granted full power to the military commandant. This model has been exported to many countries, especially in Latin America. A similar idea exists in England and common law countries, where the concept of martial law plays a comparable role. The state of emergency is not a new creation, and in some situations, public authorities need more power to handle extreme situations. However, it is essential to remember the risks associated with this tool. Legal systems typically envision two main conceptions of emergency power. 1/ the sovereignty approach: This perspective emphasizes that in a critical situation, public authorities must have the ability to derogate from legal constraints. Decisions on what actions are necessary rest with politics, as unforeseen crises require flexible responses. This approach is notably defended by Alexander Hamilton, who argued that emergency powers should exist without limitation because national crises are unpredictable. Hamilton stated, "These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or to define the extent and variety of national exigencies or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them." The core idea is that public authorities cannot anticipate future crises and, therefore, must have the freedom to deviate from established rules when necessary. This approach was also supported by Carl Schmitt, a legal theorist and defender of the Third Reich's policies. Schmitt claimed that in extreme emergencies, the sovereign has the authority to decide whether an emergency exists and how to resolve it, stating, "necessity has no law." According to him, law cannot act as a constraint in such situations. While Schmitt’s views were used to justify Nazi policies, the underlying argument that law may sometimes yield to power is accepted in less extreme interpretations. 2/ the rule of law approach: in contrast, the rule of law approach argues that any derogation from ordinary rules should occur within the framework of the law itself. This approach, championed by John Locke, asserts that while public authorities may need to exceed normal legal boundaries in extreme situations, these actions must be limited and controlled by legal frameworks. Locke's perspective was shaped by his experience of the English monarchy’s abuse of power. He emphasized that public authorities should only go beyond the law in the most extreme cases, with a clear legal foundation guiding their actions. Today, most legal systems attempt to balance these two approaches by permitting emergency powers while simultaneously imposing checks and limits on their use. Many constitutions and international conventions include emergency or derogation clauses that allow states to temporarily deviate from their obligations. However, these clauses specify that such actions are only permitted under exceptional circumstances. Additionally, certain fundamental human rights are deemed inviolable, even in emergencies. For instance, the right to life or freedom from torture cannot be suspended, no matter the situation. Furthermore, some constitutions prevent certain politically sensitive actions during states of emergency, such as holding elections, enacting constitutional reforms, or dissolving legislatures. These restrictions ensure that major institutional changes cannot occur under the extraordinary pressures of an emergency, safeguarding the democratic system from potential abuse. Derogation clauses in international human rights treaties allow states to temporarily suspend certain rights during exceptional circumstances, such as emergencies threatening national security. These clauses emphasize that derogations are only permitted in exceptional situations and must meet strict requirements. Here are some key examples: · ICCPR, article 4: ”In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.” · ECHR, article 15: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.” · IACHR, article 27: ”In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion, or social origin.” These provisions are largely similar, emphasizing that derogations are only allowed during exceptional circumstances, such as war, violent unrest, or severe natural disasters. Courts and human rights bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights, have reinforced this interpretation. Constraints on the Use of Emergency Powers: 1/ Exceptional situation requirement: The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 29 (2001) stated that derogation is permitted only in exceptional situations. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in the Lawless v. Ireland (1961) case, upheld the idea that public emergencies threatening the nation must be exceptional. Lawless was detained without trial during a terrorism crisis in Ireland, and the ECHR found that the emergency justified the derogation of rights. The inter-American court of human right considered the same and specified that the article can be applied only in time of war, listing specific situations in which derogation can be launch. 2/ Proportionality: Measures taken must be proportional to the severity of the emergency. The Inter- American Court of Human Rights emphasized this, stating that derogations must be limited to the extent and duration strictly required by the situation. Similarly, the UN Human Rights Committee stressed the importance of strict necessity for any derogation. 3/ Formal Declaration of Emergency: States are obligated to formally declare a state of emergency before taking derogatory actions. In Europe, this declaration must be sent to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, specifying the rights to be suspended and the duration. At the international level, states must notify the Secretary General of the UN. However, this obligation of publicity is not very constraining on public official: they just have to explain with the situation is exceptional. 4/ Non-Derogable Rights: Certain fundamental rights are protected even during states of emergency. Under Article 4 of the ICCPR, the following rights cannot be suspended: · Right to life (Article 6) · Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 7) · Prohibition of slavery and servitude (Article 8) · Prohibition on imprisonment for inability to pay a debt (Article 11) · Principle of legality in criminal law (Article 15) · Right to recognition as a person before the law (Article 16) · Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18) These non-derogable rights are essential to ensure that, even in the most extreme situations, certain basic human rights are preserved. In practice, courts, including the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), often defer to governments when assessing states of emergency, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues like terrorism. This is largely because courts lack access to the detailed, real-time intelligence that governments use to justify such measures. The concept of non-derogable rights is also found in Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which similarly protects:  Article 2: Right to life  Article 3: Prohibition of torture  Article 4: Prohibition of slavery  Article 7: Principle of legality in criminal law (nullum crimen sine lege) States of emergency are frequently declared in response to terrorist attacks, and the legal framework for such declarations is well-established. A critical turning point occurred after the 9/11 attacks. At the international level, there was a noticeable shift in how the United Nations and other global institutions approached the issue of terrorism. Additionally, major terrorist attacks—such as those in Madrid (March 2004), London (July 2005), and Paris (January and November 2015)—triggered the adoption of significant security measures by national governments in reaction to these threats. In the UK, the government argued that the events of 9/11 demonstrated the intent and capacity of international terroriststo launch large-scale attacks against Western societies. Due to the UK's close alliance with the US, the government saw itself as a likely target and justified the extension of executive powers, including the authority to arrest and detainsuspected terrorists. Even though 9/11 did not occur in the UK, the government used the event to justify the need for increased powers to respond to potential threats. In France, following the 2015 Paris attacks, a state of emergency was declared, which was repeatedly extended until November 2017, lasting for two years. However, when the state of emergency was lifted, the extraordinary powersgranted to the executive were not entirely revoked. Instead, many of these powers were incorporated into ordinary law. What was once deemed exceptional became part of the regular legal framework. This evolution reveals a broader trend toward the normalization of emergency powers. Initially presented as temporary and justified by extraordinary circumstances, these measures often become permanent fixtures of the legal system. As a result, the "normal" state of individual rights is gradually reduced. In France, for example, the 2015 state of emergency, initially intended to last only two years, led to the permanent retention of many expanded executive powers. This pattern is increasingly common in Western democracies, where heightened surveillance, the militarization of domestic security, and occasional derogations from fundamental rights, such as the prohibition of torture or the right to a fair trial, become normalized. Prolonged (infinite?) states of emergency: This situation poses a significant problem because it allows public officials, particularly executive authorities, to take decisions that they would not normally be able to. This can lead to a dangerous transformation of the legal system into a more authoritarian state. The increase in executive power is often justified by the claim that in exceptional situations, fast responses are needed, and the executive is seen as best suited to make quick and efficient decisions. There is a general tendency to bypass parliament and favor executive decision-making during these times. However, in a democratic system, legitimacy remains with the parliament, as it is the body of elected representatives. Therefore, any measures that restrict human rights must be discussed and approved by parliament. In a state of emergency, there is often not enough time for such discussions, so decisions are made unilaterally by the executive, with limited debate or balance regarding the restrictions on rights. The increase in executive power and its consequences for human rights have, in a way, become normalized. There is a tendency toward prolonged states of emergency, which can be studied through the concept of securitization of ordinary politics—a term developed by the Copenhagen School, particularly by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever. After the Cold War, traditional military and security concerns became less important, especially in Europe, where the idea of large-scale war seemed unlikely. Over the last 20 years, this retreat from military concerns has been compensated for by a transformation in how we view societal issues. Instead of focusing only on conflict prevention and military threats, the concept of security has expanded to include societal threats. When specific social, societal, or economic issues are framed as existential threats to the nation, the response is often militarized and handled with policy measures driven by the executive power. An example of securitization is how migration is sometimes perceived in public discourse. In many cases, migration is framed as an existential threat, which justifies the use of extensive powers by public authorities to tackle the issue. By labeling migration as a threat to national security, governments can justify greater executive power to address it. State of emergency in France: Terrorism also serves as a clear example of securitization. Many countries express the fight against terrorism as a "war on terror", further highlighting the militarization of responses to non-military issues. In France, following the November 2015 Paris attacks, a state of emergency was declared on 23 November 2015, and the French government notified the UN Secretary-General. Regarding the ICCPR, France derogated from several key rights, including:  Article 9: Right to liberty and security, protection against arbitrary arrest and detention  Article 12: Liberty of movement and residence  Article 17: Right to privacy and family life This is another example of how executive powers expand and individual rights are curtailed during prolonged states of emergency, with the justification being the need to combat threats such as terrorism. State of emergency in the UK: After the 9/11 attacks, the UK considered the threat of international terrorism serious enough to justify a derogation from certain human rights protections. UK officials wanted to detain non-nationals suspected of terrorist activities, even if they had never been convicted of any crimes. In some cases, foreigners were suspected of being involved in terrorism, and the initial solution was to expel them from the UK. This could have been legal, as foreign nationals do not automatically have the right to remain in a country that is not their home. However, there was a major challenge: these individuals could not be deported because, if returned to their home countries, they faced the risk of torture or inhumane treatment. European human rights law prohibits any state from sending individuals to countries where they may be subjected to torture or cruel treatment. This created a dilemma for UK authorities, as these individuals were considered dangerous, but they could not legally be sent back to their countries of origin. Without exceptional powers, the UK government could not simply detain people who were only suspected of being a threat. To address this, the UK decided to detain these individuals on the grounds that they posed