This article seeks to map the possible bottlenecks for international legal cooperation in the context of terrorism and/or organized crime. The assumption is that – because of the crime–terror nexus – any obstacle encountered in that area with respect to the suppression of one form of criminality will backfire on the other form as well. After addressing the indefinite concept of terrorism, and its connection with organized crime, we will look at extraterritorial jurisdiction and international cooperation in criminal matters. In the final section, we will offer a number of concluding observations.
Appeals Court for the District of Columbia (1984) Appeals Judgment Per Curiam from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Tel-Oren v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and others, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984), 233 U.S. App. D.C. 384 (1984), ILDC 875 (1984), 3 February.
2.
BanKM (2016) Report of the Secretary-General on the threat posed by ISIL (Da’esh) to international peace and security and the range of United Nations efforts in support of Member States in countering the threat. UN Doc. No. S/2016/501, 31 May.
Constitutional Court of South Africa (2001) Decision in response to urgent application for leave to appeal. Mohamed and Dalvie v President of South Africa, CCT 17/01, [2001] ZACC 18, 2001 (3) SA 893 (CC), 2001 (7) BCLR 685 (CC), ILDC 284 (ZA 2001), 28 May.
6.
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (2000), Brussels, 29 May 2000, OJ C 197, 12 July 2000.
7.
Council of the European Union (2002) EU Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002). Luxemburg, 13 June 2002, OJ L 190, 18 July.
8.
District Court for South Dakota (2005) Judgment on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Arambasic (Mitar) v. John Ashcroft and others, 403 F. Supp, 2d 951, ILDC 709 (US 2005), 18 November.
9.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (2010) Ruling on motion to dismiss. Krishanti and others v. Rajaratnam and others, Case No 09-05395, ILDC 1565 (US 2010), 26 August.
10.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (2011) Decision on motion to dismiss. Chiquita Brands International Incorporated and others v. Valencia and others, Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA, ILDC 1873 (US 2011), 792 F Supp 2d 1301 (SD Fla 2011), 3 June.
11.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division (2009) Decision on motion to dismiss. Adhikari and others v. Daoud & Partners and others, 697 F. Supp. 2d 674 (S.D. Tex. 2009), ILDC 1562 (US 2009), 3 November.
12.
Dutch Supreme Court (2004) Judgment. Public Prosecutor v. K, Case No. 02853/02 U, Decision No LJN: AF6988, ILDC 142 (2004), 7 May.
European Court of Human Rights (1989) Judgment, Merits, and Just Satisfaction. Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14038/88, A/161, [1989] ECHR 14, [1989] 11 EHRR 439, IHRL 90 (ECHR 1989), 7 July.
15.
Federal Court of Australia (2005) Appeal Judgment. Almrei v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration and Solicitor General, 2005 FCA 54, (2005) 3 FC 142, ILDC 638 (CA 2005), 8 February.
16.
Federal Court of Australia (2012) Judicial review. Santhirarajah v. Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, [2012] FCA 940, ILDC 2141 (AU 2012), 31 August.
17.
FletcherGP (2006) The indefinable concept of terrorism. Journal of International Criminal Justice4(5): 894–911.
House of Lords (2005) Appeal Judgment. A, Amnesty International (intervening) and Commonwealth Lawyers Association (intervening) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221, [2005] 3 WLR 1249, [2006] 1 All ER 575, ILDC 363 (UK 2005), 8 December.
20.
Human Rights Committee (1987) A.P. v. Italy, Application No. 204/1986, 2 November.
21.
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, New York, 15December1997.
22.
Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (2014) Final Appeal Judgment. TGG, Case No. 30087/2014, ILDC 2215 (IT 2014), 9 July.
MakarenkoT (2004) The crime–terror continuum: Tracing the interplay between transnational organised crime and terrorism. Global Crime6(1): 129–145.
26.
NadelmannEA (1993) Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of US Criminal Law Enforcement. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
27.
Naples Appellate Court (2014) Final Appeal Judgment. General Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals of Naples and Prosecutor of the Tribunal of Naples v. Legori and others, Case No. 2843, ILDC 2392 (IT 2014), 21 January.
Princeton University Program in Law and Public Affairs (2001) The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction. URL (accessed 24 January 2019): http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/princeton.html.
31.
SaulB (2017) The legal relationship between terrorism and transnational crime. Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 17/37, May. URL (accessed 24 January 2019): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2962832.
32.
SchmidA (1996) The links between transnational organized crime and terrorist crimes. Transnational Organized Crime2(4): 40–82.
Spanish Supreme Court (2007) Appeal Judgment on Admissibility. Spain v. Alvaro and others, Case No. 582/2007, ILDC 994 (ES 2007), 21 June. Translation by Juan Santos Vara for ILDC.
35.
Special Tribunal for Lebanon (2011) Appeals Chamber, Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging. Case No. STL-11-01/I, 16 February.
36.
SwartAHJ (1986) Nederlands uitleveringsrecht. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.
37.
ThienelT (2006) The admissibility of evidence obtained by torture under international law. European Journal of International Law17(2): 349–367.
38.
UK High Court (2006) Appeal judgment. Ahmad and Aswat v United States [2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin), ILDC 733 (UK 2006), 30 November.
39.
UN General Assembly (1994) Resolution 49/60. A/RES/49/60 (Measures to eliminate international terrorism), Annex (Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism), 9 December.
40.
UN General Assembly (2000) Resolution 55/25. A/RES/55/25, 15 November.
41.
UN Security Council (2001) Resolution 1373. S/RES/1373 (2001), 28 September.
42.
UN Security Council (2014) Resolution 2195. S/RES/2195 (2014), 19 December.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1998) Appeal Judgment. United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1988), 328 U.S. App. D.C. 297, 48 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1079, ILDC 1391, 6 February.
