Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-jzjqj Total loading time: 0.206 Render date: 2022-08-14T15:00:18.642Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2011

Abstract

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
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.

11 Decision, para. 85.

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.

5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

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

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *