Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 11.1: Salerno, M. E. (2017). Can diplomatic assurances, in their practical application, provide effective protection against the risk of torture and Ill treatment? A focus on the evolution of the pragmatic approach of the European court of human rights in removal cases of suspected terrorists. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 8(4), 453-475.

Abstract: In order to implement counterterrorism measures, governments have frequently resorted to the use of diplomatic assurances. This practice aims to facilitate and legitimize the removal of non-nationals to third states with dubious human rights records, contrary to the obligation not to refoule set out under international law. This article raises the question of whether such assurances provide, in practical terms, effective protection against the risk that the transferred person may be subjected to torture and ill treatment upon return. With the purpose of addressing this issue, it is essential to evaluate whether diplomatic assurances can be deemed adequate and reliable guarantees of safety against ill treatment. In this regard, the position taken by international and regional human rights bodies is of profound importance. For this reason, this article considers and comparatively analyses the existing jurisprudence on non-refoulement and diplomatic assurances of such bodies. In particular, it closely examines the pragmatic approach of the European Court of Human Rights, by focusing on the abundant case law on the removal of suspected terrorists.

Journal Article 11.2: Hsu, H. Y., & David, M. (2017). Does target-hardening result in deadlier terrorist attacks against protected targets? An examination of unintended harmful consequences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(6), 930-957.

Abstract: Objectives: This study examines whether the use of target-hardening measures engenders greater amounts of casualty terrorist attacks against protected targets. Specifically, this study evaluates the impact of augmenting aviation security and protection of U.S. embassies and diplomats on the frequency and proportion of casualty attacks against aviation targets and U.S. diplomatic targets, respectively. Method: Using time-series data from the Global Terrorism Database (1970 to 2001), this study conducts time-series intervention analysis. To provide a more comprehensive test, a variety of supplementary analyses—consisting of data transformations, various onsets of the interventions, autoregressive integrated moving average, Poisson, and vector auto regression models of time-series data—are performed. Results: We found no increase in the frequency or proportion of casualty attacks against protected targets following target-hardening interventions. The results show that the typical ensuing terrorist attack against hardened targets is not violence based (i.e., maximizing casualties). Conclusions: Findings that attacks against hardened targets did not become deadlier provide support for the criminological message that unintended harmful effects from situational terrorism prevention strategies are the exception rather than the rule.

Journal Article 11.3: Kurzman, C., Kamal, A., & Yazdiha, H. (2017). Ideology and threat assessment: Law enforcement evaluation of muslim and right-wing extremism. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3, 1-13.

Abstract: Does ideology affect assessment of the threat of violent extremism? A survey of law enforcement agencies in the United States in 2014 offers a comparison suggesting a small but statistically significant effect: Political attitudes were correlated with assessment of threats posed by Muslim extremists, and threat assessment was not correlated with the number of Muslim Americans who had engaged in violent extremism within the agency’s jurisdiction. By contrast, the perceived threat of right-wing terrorism was correlated with the number of incidents of right-wing violence and not with political attitudes. These findings reflect the context of growing polarization of attitudes toward Muslims in the United States as well as the challenge of bringing counterterrorism policies into proportion with the actual scale of violent extremism

Journal Article 11.4: Hardy, K. (2014). Resilience in UK counter-terrorism. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 77-94.

Abstract: Resilience describes the capacity of an individual, community or ecosystem to mitigate the impact of a shock or disturbance and then to recover in its aftermath. In recent years, resilience has become the favoured solution for a range of contemporary policy problems including natural disasters, mental health issues and terrorism. However, the concept is understood far less in criminology and counter-terrorism than in other fields such as psychology and natural hazards studies. This article compares resilience-building measures in the Prepare and Prevent strands of CONTEST, the UK government’s national strategy for countering terrorism. Its aim is to explore the benefits and dangers of resilience according to how the concept is defined and applied across different contexts.

Additional Articles

• Gabbidon, S. L., Penn, E. B., Jordan, K. L., & Higgins, G. E. (2009, September). The influence of race/ethnicity on the perceived prevalence and support for racial profiling at airports. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(3), 344-358.

• Lang, A. F., Jr. (2008, May). Punishment and peace: Critical reflections on countering terrorism. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 36(3), 493-511.

• Harlow, B. (2011, April). ‘Extraordinary renditions’: Tales of Guantánamo, a review article. Race & Class, 52(4), 1-29.

• Macmaster, N. (2004, October). Torture: From Algiers to Abu Ghraib. Race & Class, 46(2), 1-21.

• Malka, A., & Soto, C. J. (2011, August). The conflicting influences of religiosity on attitude toward torture. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1091-1103.

• Manwell, L. A. (2010, February). In Denial of democracy: Social psychological implications for public discourse on state crimes against democracy post-9/11. American Behavioral Science, 53(6), 848-884.

• Metcalfe, C., & Hodge, O. (2017). Empowering the police to fight terrorism in Israel. Criminology & Criminal Justice.

• Moore, K. M. (2007, July). Muslims in the United States: Pluralism under exceptional circumstances. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 612(1), 116-132.

• Murray, N. (2011, October–December). Obama and the global war on terror. Race & Class, 53(2), 84-93.

• Nakhaie, R., & de Lint, W. (June 2013). Trust and support for surveillance policies in canadian and American opinion. International Criminal Justice Review, 23(2), 149-169.

• Rocha, A. M. (2004). Undoing the blindfold of old glory: Observations on 9/11 and the war on terrorism from Lockdown USA. Cultural Studies ß à Critical Methodologies, 4(2), 143-151.

• Sturken, M. (2011, July). Comfort, irony, and trivialization: The mediation of torture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(4), 423-440.

• Thorne, K., & Kouzmin, A. (February 2010). The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent legislation and oligarchic isomorphism in the “politics of fear” and state crime(s) against democracy (SCADs). American Behavioral Scientist, 53(6), 885-920.

• Walzer, M. (December 2007). On fighting terrorism justly. International Relations, 21(4), 480-484.

• Wheeler, N. J. (2002). Dying for ‘Enduring Freedom’: Accepting responsibility for civilian casualties in the war against terrorism. International Relations, 16(2), 205-225.

• Wilke, C. (2005, December). War v. Justice: Terrorism, enemy combatants, and political justice in U.S. courts. Politics & Society, 33(4), 637-669.