On the definition of terrorism according to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
The definition of terrorism applied by the STL. Does a customary definition of the crime of terrorism exist?
Introduction: The STL Interlocutory Decision on the Definition of Terrorism – Judicial Ingenuity or Radicalism?
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), set up in The Hague to try those responsible for the 2005 bombing that killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others, is the first international court with jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism.1 On 16 February 2011, the STL Appeals Chamber issued an Interlocutory Decision on the applicable law, having been asked by the pre-trial judge to clarify the law on 15 points.2 This unanimous Decision is a landmark ruling that has sparked debate amongst legal practitioners and scholars. Two of those, Kai Ambos and Ben Saul, will comment on the ruling in this symposium. As an introduction to their comments, we briefly discuss the most important points of the Appeals Chamber’s decision. The Chamber answered the questions put to it by the pre-trial judge under the following headings: (I) Interpretation of the STL Statute, (II) The notion of terrorism to be applied by the Tribunal, (III) Other crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the STL, (IV) Modes of criminal responsibility, and (V) The question of cumulative charging. As to the first issue – the interpretation of the STL Statute – the Appeals Chamber held that the Tribunal is to apply Lebanese law as interpreted and applied by Lebanese courts3 unless such interpretation or application is unreasonable, would result in manifest injustice, or is non-consonant with international principles and rules binding Lebanon.4 Interestingly enough, the Chamber does not rely on international law in that modest manner, namely as a correction mechanism or for the sole purpose of filling a lacuna. Instead, it adopts an activist ‘internationalist approach’ by granting
Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law
The terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 have potentially shattering consequences for international law. It will be necessary to rethink some important legal categories and to emphasize general principles. Collective rather than unilateral measures should be taken as far as possible. Otherwise anarchy could ensue.