HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023401.jpg

In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) Since the September 11th Attacks, the Security Council has continued to condemn international terrorism and the provision of material support for terrorism and to assert that it poses a serious threat to peace and security. See, e.g., S.C. Res. 1373 (Sept. 28, 2001) (deciding that States shall “[p]revent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts,” and “[c]riminalize the willful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts”); S.C. Res. 1377 (Nov. 12, 2001) (declaring “that acts of international terrorism constitute one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century, ... that acts of international terrorism constitute a challenge to all States and to all humanity”). 2. International conventions The Security Council has defined international terrorism in accordance with the definition used in international treaties to combat international terrorism. See, e.g., S/RES 156 (Oct. 8, 2004) (recalling that *127 acts “which constitute offenses within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable ... and calls upon all States to ... ensure that such acts are punished”). One of the principal treaties to combat international terrorism is the 1999 Financing Terrorism Convention. Article 2.1 of that Convention states: Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: (a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex;''> or (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Dec. 9, 1999) (1999 Financing Terrorism Convention), 2178 U.N.T.S. 197. The 1999 Financing Terrorism Convention was signed by at least 39 nations *128 before September 11, 2011, entered into force on April 10, 2002, and now has 132 signatories and 174 parties. See United States v. Bahlul, No. 09-001, 2011 U.S. CMCR LEXIS 3, at *126-27 (CMCR Sept. 9, 2011). Most of the regional and multilateral conventions regarding terrorism employ a similar definition. See Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charges (Applicable Law for Special Tribunal for Lebanon), 50 I.L.M. 513, 536 (Spec. Trib. For Leb. July 2011) (discussing conventions). In addition, “all of these conventions require--through the definition of the actus reus (the material element of a crime) or by additional provisions--a transnational element to the crime.” Id. These international treaties and conventions support the conclusion that “conduct in support of terrorism [is] internationally condemned and criminal.” United States v. Hamdan, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1284 (CMCR 2011). 3. Domestic laws of nations Countries throughout the world have adopted a similar definition of terrorism in their domestic law (although in some cases the domestic definition is broader than the definition in the international conventions because it does not include the transnational element). See, e.g., Applicable *129 Law for Special Tribunal for Lebanon, 50 I.L.M. at *537-39; Bahlul, 2011 U.S. CMCR Lexis 3, at *138-148. For these reasons, at least one international court has found that there is a general opinion and practice such that international terrorism is a violation of customary international law. See Applicable Law for Special Tribunal for Lebanon, 50 1.L.M. at *535; Hamdan, 801 F. Supp. 2d at 1288-92. WESTLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023401