Terrorist, war criminal, or both? Towards dual prosecutions of war crimes and terrorist offences

A leading media figure and foreign fighter of a notorious group designated as terrorist was sentenced to life imprisonment for “conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, resulting in death”. Although outwardly appearing to quench the thirst of esteemed Lady Justice, the criminal charge reveals only part of the picture: in addition to having provided material support, the defendant was also filmed personally executing two kneeling soldiers, in other words, a foreseeably serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL). Whilst these factual elements are mentioned with regard to the aggravated circumstances of the conduct and resulting consequences for sentencing considerations, the defendant was only charged with one single criminal count – the terrorist offence. Such is characteristic of the issues this post seeks to address, namely, the tensions that arise when such serious violations of IHL are apparently overlooked, and victims’ calls for justice left unanswered. In this post and as part of the Emerging Voices series, Natasha Floodgate, PhD candidate and teaching assistant at the University of Geneva, analyses current trends surrounding prosecutions of terrorist offences and war crimes before examining why such practice occurs. In a bid to reconcile the latitude afforded by the international counter-terrorism framework with existing state obligations under IHL and international criminal law (ICL), the author calls for a dualistic approach in order to achieve comprehensive prosecutorial outcomes.