“Foreign Terrorist Fighters”: A Human Rights Approach?

Abstract

This article reflects on the proliferation of responses to the so-called phenomenon of “foreign terrorist fighters,” and the profound human rights challenges they give rise to. It considers national, regional and international developments, many spurred by an activist Security Council, through which expanded powers have been assumed and rights restricted by reference to the need to respond to ftf threats. A series of uncomfortable relationships emerge from this analysis. They include for example tensions: between the evolving and still relatively superficial understanding of the nature and source of uncertain threats and contributing factors on the one hand, and the onerous and far-reaching nature of responses directed against them on the other; between the expansive use of coercive measures including criminal law, and basic constraining principles of criminal law upon which its legitimacy and power depends, such as individual culpability, harm principle and remoteness; or between the original purposes of most ftf measures and their impact in practice, on the operation of humanitarian law, on humanitarian workers and human rights defenders, and on the rule of law. Exceptional ftf measures continue to spread their reach and creep into other areas of security and organised crime. The article highlights the need to consider the short and long term impact, on the full range of rights of many, of the array of administrative, criminal and other measures being passed into law and implemented in practice across the globe in the name of responding to the ill-defined phenomenon of “ftfs”.

Repatriation as a Human Rights Approach to State Options in Dealing with Returning ISIS Foreign Terrorist Fighters

“…Here, the consideration should be whether the danger posed by repatriated fighters is greater than that posed by a floating population of rootless jihadis (Jenkins, 2019). For national security threats to be justified as necessary and proportionate for restrictions, such threats must at least involve a reasonable risk of serious disturbance, and not an abstract, hypothetical, or remote danger down the line (Duffy, 2018).…”

“…Since the territorial defeat of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was announced by the United States along with its allies, the influx of FTFs, specifically their movement to countries of origin, has been intensely debated among the international community. While traveling to take part in foreign conflicts is not a new phenomenon, the extent of reactions for such action at both the international and national levels in recent years, certainly is (Duffy, 2018). Moreover, as the extremist group has lost control and significant ground of its so-called Caliphate since 2014 (The Guardian, 2019; BBC, 2019), the debate on what states should do, both individually and collectively with FTFs from their countries along with their families has become more relevant yet controversial.…”

The repatriation of returning ISIS foreign terrorist fighters: Analysis of the factors influencing Indonesia’s refusal and its implications on counterterrorism efforts

“…Since the USA and its coalition partners declared that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria had been definitively vanquished, the international community has been debating the entry of FTFs in Syrian war particularly about their repatriation to their home countries. Although participating in international wars is nothing new, the scale of responses to this trend in recent years is unprecedented (Duffy 2018). Since 2014, questions over what authorities should do with FTFs from their states along with their families have also become more important but problematic as the terrorist organization has relinquished considerable influence and command of its territory known as "Caliphate" (The Guardian 2019).…”