icct Report, December 2016: Foreign Terrorist Fighters

Abstract

This article is based on a paper which was developed for the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s Foreign Terrorist Fighters (ftf) Working Group. It takes stock of the current trends and dynamics related to the ftf phenomenon and identifies some of the gaps that still need to be addressed. The distinction between home-grown terrorists and (returning) ftfs is fading, the difference between isil/Da’esh inspired or directed terrorist attacks is becoming more fluid and the nexus between terrorism and crime is more prominent, which clearly indicates that terrorism can manifest itself in many different ways. The involvement of returning ftfs in some terrorist attacks is a stark reminder of the potential threat returning ftfs pose. The data also indicates a demographic change with a more prominent role of female ftfs and children being recruited and used in hostilities or involved in terrorist attacks. The current trends underline the need for a comprehensive, tailored and multidisciplinary approach including the involvement of stakeholders at the local level to adequately address the evolving aspects of the ftf phenomenon. This paper provides a short overview of policy responses which can broadly be grouped into preventive, criminal, administrative and rehabilitative measures. The ftf related responses could have several human rights implications and states are encouraged to develop a comprehensive approach to address the ftf phenomenon in full respect of human rights.

Repatriation as a Human Rights Approach to State Options in Dealing with Returning ISIS Foreign Terrorist Fighters

“…This territorial theory is in the position that criminal jurisdiction depends on the place of the perpetration, which is the country whose territory is the site of the crime or offense being committed (Perkins, 1971). Thus, if there is a legitimate and well-functioning government in the aftermath of a conflict, the most obvious option is for the prosecution of suspects to take place in the national courts based on the principle of territoriality (Mehra, 2017), since the witnesses and evidence would be easier to access in the local prosecutions. Therefore, in theory, domestic courts in Iraq and Syria have the primary jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals and foreign fighters.…”