Democracy in Dilemma: Means for Fighting Terror

Amit Eisenman, one of the Institute’s researchers, has recently focused on the question of the legitimacy of using singular measures of punishment and deterrence to combat a singular crime – terror. In keeping with our best tradition, we chose to examine the issue by means of a comparative study with the aim of refuting the claim that targeted preventative killings, demolitions of houses and revocation of citizenship are unreasonable means in a democratic regime.
The study examines the use of these three practices in the fight against terror in the member countries of the G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and the US. This study aims to enhance the perspective of decision-makers in Israel and to demonstrate how different countries contend with the similar challenges of fighting terror they share. The main findings are presented below:
Regarding targeted preventative killings, 4 of the 6 countries examined maintain armed UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) intended for use in this faculty. In practice, such killings have been employed by 3 of these countries in recent years (those with larger armed forces and broader scope of operations).
Although this form of house demolition is a procedure uniquely instigated by the State of Israel, a person convicted of terrorism in France also forfeits his assets to the state.
Revocation of citizenship is the most commonly employed means of those studied: all the above countries employed this practice and apart from Canada, which has foregone its use, revocation of citizenship is still implemented by the other countries. In Italy, a terrorist’s citizenship may be revoked even if he remains stateless as a result.

to the full research…

 

 

Leave a Reply

Font Resize
Contrast