A Precautionary Consensus?

  • Claire HamiltonEmail author
Part of the Crime Prevention and Security Management book series (CPSM)


This chapter aims to examine the cross-cutting trends, and indeed differences, in counter-terrorism law and policy across the three jurisdictions. In all three we can point to evidence of ‘all-risks’ policing, mass surveillance, broadly drafted legislation, a growing range of precursor offences and increasing resort to administrative over judicial authorities. Admittedly, this has occurred to varying degrees in the three jurisdictions and according to pre-established legislative patterns, practices and political cultures. There have also been marked differences in the application of these laws, emphasising the need for comparative research to examine the law in practice as well as the law in the books.


Contagion Counter-terrorism Criminal justice Convergence Divergence 


  1. Amnesty International (2015) L’état d’urgence a visé les défenseurs de l’environnement. Paris: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International (2016a) Poland: Counter-terrorism bill would give security service unchecked power (Amnesty International Public Statement No. EUR 37/4263/2016). London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  3. Amnesty International (2016b) Upturned lives: The disproportionate impact of France’s state of emergency. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  4. Amnesty International (2017) Dangerously disproportionate: The ever-expanding national security state in Europe. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, D. (2012) The Terrorism Acts in 2011. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, D. (2014) The Terrorism Acts in 2013. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, D. (2016) The Terrorism Acts in 2015. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  8. Bigo, D. and Camus, C. (2006) Overview of the French anti-terrorism strategy. Working Document, First Inventory of Policy on Counterterrorism: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. Available at: Scholar
  9. Cahn, O. (2010) The fight against terrorism and human rights: The French perspective. In: Wade, M. and Maljevic, A. (eds) A War on Terror? New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Cahn, O. (2016) «Cet ennemi intérieur, nous devons le combattre». Le dispositif antiterroriste français, une manifestation du droit pénal de l’ennemi. Archives de Politique Criminelle 38: 91–121.Google Scholar
  11. CNCDH (2016) Statement of opinion on the state of emergency. Paris: Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme.Google Scholar
  12. Crenshaw, M. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in M. Crenshaw (ed.) The Consequences of Counterterrorism. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Daranowski, P. (2015) Poland. In: K. Roach (Ed.), Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Den Boer, M. and Wiegand, I. (2015) From Convergence to Deep Integration: Evaluating the Impact of EU Counter-Terrorism Strategies on Domestic Arenas, Intelligence and National Security, 30(2–3): 377–401.Google Scholar
  15. Donohue, L. K. (2007) Britain’s Counterterrorism Policy. In: D. Zimmermann and A. Wenger (eds.) How States Fight Terrorism: Policy Dynamics in the West. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Foley, F. (2013) Justice for suspected terrorists? In: F. Foley (ed.) Countering Terrorism in Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. French Embassy (2017) France and UK announce plan to tackle online radicalization. [press release]. 13th June. Available at: Scholar
  18. Galli, F. (2015) The Law on Terrorism: The UK, France and Italy Compared. Bruxelles: Bruyant.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, C. (2018a) The European Union: Sword or Shield? Comparing counter-terrorism law in the EU and USA after 9/11. Theoretical Criminology, 22(2): 206–225.Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton, C. (2018b) Sword or shield? The influence of international organisations in counterterrorism law and policy making. Brazilian Journal of Criminal Sciences, Dossier ‘Los retos de la política legislativa penal a comienzos del siglo xxi’ – RBCCRIM n° 147 (septiembre/2018).Google Scholar
  21. Hill, M. (2018) The Terrorism Acts in 2016. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  22. HM Government (2017) Transparency Report 2017: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. Hodgson, J. S. (2013) Legitimacy and state responses to terrorism: The UK and France. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-30. Warwick School of Law.Google Scholar
  24. Home Office (2016) Investigatory Powers Bill receives Royal Assent. 29th November. [press release] Available at:
  25. Home Office (2018) Operation of Police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: quarterly update to December 2017. 8th March. Available at: Scholar
  26. Human Rights Watch (2008) Preempting justice: Counterterrorism laws and procedures in France. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  27. Human Rights Watch (2018a) France’s Creeping terrorism Law restricting Free Speech. May 30th. Available at: Scholar
  28. Human Rights Watch (2018b) Overreach: how new global counterterrorism measures jeopardize rights. World Report 2017. Available at:
  29. Interstats (2017) Insécurité et délinquance en 2016: premier bilan statistique. Paris: Ministère de Intérieur. Available at: Scholar
  30. Krajewski, K. (2012) Prosecution and Prosecutors in Poland: In quest of independence. Crime and Justice, 41, 75–116.Google Scholar
  31. Kusak, M. (2016) Mutual Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU: A Study of Telephone Tapping and House Search. IRCP Research Series. Volume Available at:
  32. Labayle, H. (2012) Les infraction terroristes en droit penal francais: Quel impact des decisions-cadres de 2002 et 2008? In: F. Galli and A. Weyembergh (eds.) EU Counter-terrorism Offences: What impact on national legislation and case law? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  33. Lennon, G. (2015) Precautionary tales: Suspicionless counter-terrorism stop and search. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 15(1): 44–62.Google Scholar
  34. Lennon, G. and Walker, C. (2016) Conclusions. In: G. Lennon and C. Walker (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Law and Terrorism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Liberty (2018) Liberty’s Second Reading Briefing on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill 2018. London: Liberty. Available at:
  36. Libront, K. (2014) Definition of Terrorist Act in International Law and Polish Criminal Law. Problems and Policy Implications. In: Milosevic, M. and Rekawek, K. (eds.) Perseverance of Terrorism: Focus on Leaders. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lyon, D. (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  38. Mayaud, Y. (2013) La politique d’incrimination du terrorisme à la lumière de la législation récente. AJ Pénal 9.Google Scholar
  39. Meyer, C. O. (2009) International Terrorism as a Force of Homogenization? A Constructivist Approach to Understanding Cross-National Threat Perceptions and Responses. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4): 647–666.Google Scholar
  40. Ministère de Intérieur (2017) Sortie de l’état d’urgence: un bilan et des chiffres clés. [press release]. 3rd November. Available at: Scholar
  41. Murphy, C. C. (2012) EU Counter-Terrorism Law: Pre-emption and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Newburn, T. and Sparks, R. (2004) Criminal justice and political cultures. In: Newburn, T. and Sparks, R. Criminal Justice and Political Cultures. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  43. Oehmichen, A. (2009) Terrorism and anti-terror legislation – the terrorised legislator? A comparison of counter-terrorism legislation and its implications on human rights in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and France. PhD Thesis. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
  44. Pantazis, C. and Pemberton, S. (2009) From the old to the new suspect community. British journal of Criminology, 49(5): 646–666.Google Scholar
  45. Roach, K. (2011) The United Kingdom Responds A Legislative War on Terrorism. In: Roach, K. (ed.) The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Roach, K. (2015) Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law Comes of Age. In: Roach, K. (ed.) Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rydzak, J. (2016) Now Poland’s Government is Coming after the Internet. Foreign Policy, 10th June. Available at:
  48. Spencer, J. R. (2012) ‘No thank you, we’ve already got one!’ Why EU anti-terrorist legislation has made little impact on the law in the UK. In: F. Galli and A. Weyembergh (eds.) EU Counter-terrorism Offences: What impact on national legislation and case law? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  49. Sugman Stubbs, K. and Galli, F. (2012) Inchoate offences: The sanctioning of an act prior to and irrespective of the commission of any harm. In: F. Galli and A. Weyembergh (eds.) EU Counter-terrorism Offences: What impact on national legislation and case law? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  50. Tréguer, F. (2017) Intelligence reform and the Snowden Paradox: The case of France. Media and Communication 5(1): 17–28.Google Scholar
  51. UN Human Rights Committee (2016) Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland (No. CCPR/C/POL/CO/7). Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee.Google Scholar
  52. Walker, C. (2008) ‘Know thine enemy as thyself’: discerning friend from foe under anti-terrorism laws [online]. Melbourne University Law Review, 32(2): 275–301.Google Scholar
  53. Weil, S. (2018) Terror in Courts. French Counter-Terrorism: Administrative and Penal Avenues. Report for the official visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. May 2018. Available at:
  54. Zedner, L. (2007a) Pre-crime and post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 11(2): 261–281.Google Scholar
  55. Zedner, L. (2007b) Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 60(1): 174–203.Google Scholar
  56. Zedner, L. (2009) Security and Counter-terrorism. In: Zedner, L. Security. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Zieba, A. (2015) Counterterrorism Systems of Spain and Poland: Comparative Studies. Przeglad Politologiczny, 3, 65–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawMaynooth UniversityKildare, MaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations