Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:48:26.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: The STL Interlocutory Decision on the Definition of Terrorism – Judicial Ingenuity or Radicalism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2011

ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT  and
LARISSA VAN DEN HERIK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: Symposium on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's Appeal Decision on Terrorism
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 651 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For more on the creation of the Tribunal by SC Res. 1757 (2008) and its arguable international character, see an earlier LJIL symposium in issue 21(2), with contributions from Frédéric Mégret, William A. Schabas, and Björn Elberling.

2 UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Appeals Chamber), Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, STL-11–01/I, 16 February 2011 (hereafter, ‘Decision’).

3 Decision, para. 33.

4 Decision, para. 39.

5 Decision, para. 62.

6 This concerned in particular the narrow interpretation of the ‘means’ element as only including instruments and devices explicitly listed in the definition in Art. 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code, and the means had to be designed to create a public danger. Decision, paras. 47–55.

7 Decision, para. 62.

8 Decision, paras. 83–130.

9 Decision, para. 83.

10 Ibid.

11 Decision, para. 85.

12 Ibid.

13 Decision, paras. 107–109.

14 Decision, paras. 124–130.

15 Decision, para. 124.

16 Decision, para. 143.

17 Decision, para. 147.

18 Decision, para. 150.

19 Decision, para. 211.

20 Decision, paras. 213–217.

21 Decision, paras. 218–228.

22 Decision, paras. 229–249.

23 Decision, paras. 265–301.