Abstract
From 1996 onwards the international legal community has been trying to establish a general anti-terrorism treaty. Despite several attempts to reach agreement on such a general treaty within the framework of an ad hoc commission of the General Assembly of the UN, this goal has never been fulfilled, due to a lack of consensus on the definition of the concept of terrorism. For the very same reason, the offence of terrorism has not been incorporated in the ICC Statute. This raises the question of the extent to which international criminal law is sufficiently equipped to combat international terrorism, particularly considering the effects of the September 11 attacks on national and international criminal law, as well as the fact that an International Extradition Convention with respect to International Terrorism is still lacking. The additional need for such a uniform treaty recently became apparent following the terrorist attacks in Bali and Mombasa (Kenya). At the same time, the EU, with the advent of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), is entering a new era with regard to combating terrorism. The purpose of this development is in principle to abolish the present extradition formalities and obstacles. However, the recent decision of 10 December 2002, issued by the Extradition Chamber of the District Court in Amsterdam, which rejected an extradition request concerning a person suspected of being a member of the Turkish PKK, an organization prohibited in Turkey, also emphasizes the importance of the ‘Rule of Law’ in the area of suppressing terrorism on both the global and European level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.