Advertisement

Case Studies of National Counter-Terrorism Policies: Case Study of France

  • Francesca GalliEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the International Human Rights book series (IHR)

Abstract

Powerful terrorist organizations have hit French territory over the years, including international terrorism groups, ideological (extreme left) groups, and separatist movements. The legal response – as it has evolved in practice since the late 1980s – has been mainly shaped by the threat of international terrorism. The drafting of specific legislation – conceived as a structured and coherent corpus of rules – has been particularly relevant in the organization of an anti-terrorism regime. The September 11 attacks in themselves provoked a limited but significant restructuring of national anti-terrorist arrangements, and new statutes unfolded within the framework of a considerable body of existing legislation. Most importantly, in the Code Pénal, there is no provision establishing terrorism as an all-embracing offence. In fact, terrorism is defined in terms of a list of existing criminal offences which constitute “terrorism” when carried out, whether by an individual or a collective actor, for the purpose of creating a serious breach of public order by means of intimidation or terror. The new provisions are meant to frame the use of special procedural measures. In addition, the shift of criminal liability upstream from the commission of any harm has been achieved by the application of “association for terrorist purposes” offences which have played a central role in the repression of terrorism since the 1980s/1990s. The scope of these offences is extremely broad and punishes any kind of participation in a group with a view to preparing a terrorist act provided that this has been demonstrated “by one or more material actions.”

Keywords

Terrorism France Criminal law Preparatory activities 

References

  1. Alix J (2010) Terrorisme et droit pénal; étude critique des incriminations terroristes. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth A (1999), Principles of Criminal Law 3rd edn, OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashworth A (2006) Principles of criminal law, 5th edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 49–50Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel R (2012) Assemblée Nationale, n. 409, 14 November 2012, pp 46–47Google Scholar
  5. Bribosia E, Weyembergh A (eds) (2002) Lutte contre le terrorisme et droits fondamentaux. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunst P (2009) Terrorism and the internet: new threats posed by cyber-terrorism and terrorist use of the internet. In: Wade M, Maljevic A (eds) A war on terror? Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cettina N (2001) L’anti-terrorisme en question. Michalon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Child J, Hunt A (2011) Risk, pre-emption, and the limits of the criminal law. In: Doolin K, Child J, Raine J, Beech A (eds) Whose criminal justice?: state of community. Waterside Press, HookGoogle Scholar
  9. Conway M (2006) Terrorism and the internet: new media – new threat? Parliam Aff 59(2):283Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union (2005) The European Union strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism (14781/1/05)Google Scholar
  11. EU Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights (2004) The balance between freedom and security in the response by the European Union and its member states to the terrorist threats. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. EU Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights (2005) The requirements of fundamental rights in the framework of the measures of prevention of violent radicalisation and recruitment of potential terroristsGoogle Scholar
  13. EUROPOL (2018) TE-SATGoogle Scholar
  14. Feinberg J (1987) The moral limits of the criminal law. OUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. France shooting: Toulouse Jewish school attack kills four (2012, Mar 19) BBC News EuropeGoogle Scholar
  16. Galli, F (2005), The law of terrorism: the UK, France and Italy compared Bruylant, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Gozzi M-E (2003) Le terrorisme. Ellipses, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. ICCT (2016) The foreign fighters phenomenon in the EU, April 2016; ICCT, foreign (terrorist) fighters estimates: conceptual and data issues, October 2015Google Scholar
  19. ICCT (2017) Tackling the surge of returning foreign fighters, July 2017. https://icct.nl/publication/tackling-the-surge-of-returning-foreign-fighters/
  20. Labayle H (2011) Les infractions terroristes en droit pénal francais. In: Galli F, Weyemberg A (eds) EU counter-terrorism offences. Edition de l’ULB, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. Lacey N (2006) Reconstructing criminal law: text and materials, 3rd edn. CUP, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Laferrière J (1980), note to CE 15 February 1980, Gaz Pal, II, p. 794Google Scholar
  23. Luchaire F (1996) Le Conseil Constitutionnel devant la répression du terrorisme. 5 RDP 1245Google Scholar
  24. Marchand SA (2010) An ambiguous response to a real threat: criminalising the glorification of terrorism in Britain. George Washington Int Law Rev 42:123Google Scholar
  25. Marguénaud J-P (1990) La qualification pénale des actes de terrorisme. 1 RCS 1, 8–10Google Scholar
  26. Mayaud Y (1997) Le terrorisme. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. McColgan M, Attanasio A (1999) France: paving the way for arbitrary justice (Report) 271/2. http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/271fran.pdf
  28. O’Hanlon K (1997, June 27) Law report: risk of prejudice in French trial not shown. Independent, London. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-risk-of-prejudice-in-french-trial-not-shown-1258202.html
  29. 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, Germany and France. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  30. Orwell G (1984) Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, p 55Google Scholar
  31. Pantucci R (2011) A typology of lone wolves: preliminary analysis of lone Islamist terrorists. ICSR, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Picotti L (2009) Expanding forms of preparation and participation. Int Rev Penal Law 78:405Google Scholar
  33. Plan d’Action contre la Radicalisation et le Terrorism, 9 Mai 2016Google Scholar
  34. Pradel J (1987) Les infractions de terrorisme. Dalloz 10:39, 42Google Scholar
  35. Precht T (2007) Home grown terrorism and Islamist radicalisation in Europe. Danish Ministry of Justice, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  36. Rachid Ramda condamné à la prison à perpétuité (2009, Oct 13) Le Monde, Paris. http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2009/10/13/rachid-ramda-condamne-a-la-prison-a-perpetuite_1253581_3224.html
  37. TS Renoux (2003) Juger le terrorisme? Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel 14:102Google Scholar
  38. Spitz P-E (1997) À propos de la décision du Conseil Constitutionnel. RFDA 13(3):538Google Scholar
  39. Sugman Stubbs K, Galli F (2011) Inchoate offences. The sanctioning of an act prior to and irrespective of the commission of any harm. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) EU counter-terrorism offences. Editions de l’ULB, Brussels, pp 291–304Google Scholar
  40. Thachuk KL et al (2008) Homegrown terrorism. The threat within. National Defense University, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. UNODC (2012) The use of the internet for terrorist purposes, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  42. Vidino L et al (2017) Fear thy neighbor. Radicalization and Jihadist attacks in the West. ISPIGoogle Scholar
  43. Von Hirsh A (1996) Extending the harm principle. In: Simester A, Smith ATH (eds) Harm and culpability. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar

List of Legislation

  1. Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse Google Scholar
  2. Loi du 18 décembre 1893 Google Scholar
  3. Loi du 28 juillet 1894 sur les menées anarchistes Google Scholar
  4. Loi du 10 janvier 1936 sur les groupes de combat et milices Google Scholar
  5. Loi n° 55-385 du 3 avril 1955 relative à l’état d’urgence Google Scholar
  6. Loi n°63-22 du 15 janvier 1963 modifiant et complétant le code de procédure pénale en vue de la répression des crimes et délits contre la sûreté de l’Etat Google Scholar
  7. Loi n° 81-82 du 2 février 1981 renforçant la sécurité et protégeant la liberté des personnes Google Scholar
  8. Loi n° 86-1020 du 9 septembre 1986 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et aux atteintes à la sûreté de l’Etat Google Scholar
  9. Loi n° 96-647 du 22 juillet 1996 tendant à renforcer la répression du terrorisme et des atteintes aux personnes dépositaires de l’autorité publique ou chargées d’une mission de service public et comportant des dispositions relatives à la police judiciaire Google Scholar
  10. Loi n° 2000-516 du 15 juin 2000 renforçant la protection de la présomption d’innocence et les droits des victims Google Scholar
  11. Loi n° 2001-1062 du 15 novembre 2001 relative à la sécurité quotidienne Google Scholar
  12. Loi n° 2003-239 du 18 mars 2003 pour la sécurité intérieure Google Scholar
  13. Loi n° 2004-204 du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité, dite Loi Perben II Google Scholar
  14. Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles Google Scholar
  15. Loi n° 2007-293 du 5 mars 2007 réformant la protection de l’enfance Google Scholar
  16. Loi n° 2012-1432 du 21 décembre 2012 relative à la sécurité et à la lutte contre le terrorisme Google Scholar
  17. Loi n° 2015-912 du 24 juillet 2015 relative au renseignement Google Scholar
  18. Loi n° 2016-731 du 3 juin 2016 renforçant la lutte contre le crime organisé, le terrorisme et leur financement, et améliorant l’efficacité et les garanties de la procédure pénale Google Scholar
  19. Loi n° 2017-1510 du 30 octobre 2017 renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme Google Scholar

List of Cases

  1. Crim 20 August 1932Google Scholar
  2. CC Decision no 80-127 (1981)Google Scholar
  3. CC Decision no 86-213 DC of 3 September 1986, Rec 122Google Scholar
  4. Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737Google Scholar
  5. Klass and Others v. Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214Google Scholar
  6. CE 15 February 1980 Gaz Pal 1980.II.794 note Julien LaferrièreGoogle Scholar
  7. Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407Google Scholar
  8. Castells v. Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445Google Scholar
  9. Wingrove v. United Kingdom (1996) 24 EHRR 1Google Scholar
  10. CC Decision no 96-337 DC of 16 July 1996, Rec 87Google Scholar
  11. Arslan v. Turkey App no 23462/94 (ECtHR 8 July 1999)Google Scholar
  12. Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey Apps no 23927/94 and 24277/94 (ECtHR 8 July 1999)Google Scholar
  13. Karatas v. Turkey ECHR 1999-IVGoogle Scholar
  14. Ozturk v. Turkey ECHR 1999-VIGoogle Scholar
  15. Incal v. Turkey (2000) 29 EHRR 449Google Scholar
  16. Crim 15 June 2000 no de pourvoi 99-87596 (unrep)Google Scholar
  17. Benjamin v. Minister of Information and Broadcasting (2001) UKPC 8Google Scholar
  18. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) EWHC 1278 (Admin)Google Scholar
  19. Crim 25 March 2003Google Scholar
  20. Sener v. Turkey (2003) 37 EHRR 34Google Scholar
  21. Ramda v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) EWHC 2526 (Admin)Google Scholar
  22. Civ (1) 12 July 2006, Bull civ I no 395Google Scholar
  23. Leroy v. France App no 36109/03 (ECtHR 2 October 2008)Google Scholar
  24. Crim, 23 May 2012 Bull crim no 141, (2007) RSC 596Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations