This document presents the findings of a study into methods that can help counterterrorism professionals make decisions about ethical problems. The study was commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoeken Documentatiecentrum, WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie), on behalf of the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid,NCTV). The research team at RAND Europe was complemented by applied ethics expert Anke van Gorp from the Research Centre for Social Innovation (Kenniscentrum Sociale Innovatie) at Hogeschool Utrecht. The study provides an inventory of methods to support ethical decision-making in counterterrorism, drawing on the experience of other public sectors – healthcare, social work, policing and intelligence – and multiple countries, primarily the Netherlands and the United Kingdom
DOCUMENT
Abstract Chapter 4: Basing ourselves on a literature review and expert interviews we create an overview of methods and tools to identify and respond to ethical questions used in healthcare, social work, police and the military. We identify six main types of methods or tools that can support professionals or organisations in dealing with ethical issues. Some of these methods are already used in CT or could be used. Some methods or tools are targeted at individual professionals or small groups, whilst others are targeted at the organisational level. The methods and tools are described in brief. Samenvatting boek: Wat is ethisch wel en wat niet geoorloofd? De aanslagen die de Europese hoofdsteden teisteren wrijven het ons in: terrorismebestrijding is noodzakelijk en is onlosmakelijk verbonden met de moderne samenleving. De inlichtingendiensten en andere organisaties die zich hiermee bezighouden, stuiten echter telkens op de vraag hoe ver zij mogen gaan. Waar liggen de grenzen? Wat is ethisch wel en wat niet geoorloofd? En vooral: hoe gaan professionals met deze soms levensgrote dilemma's om? In deze Engelstalige uitgave reflecteren wetenschappers, terrorismebestrijders en ethici op dit zeer actuele thema.
MULTIFILE
Hoofdstuk 15 15.1 Introduction 15.2 An international law perspective 15.3 The American position 15.4 International human rights developments 15.5 Effective remedy and reparations 15.6 Reflections References In the international arena there are some encouraging developments in relation to accountability and transparency for the use of armed drones. It is increasingly recognized that remote pilotless aircraft have become part of modern warfare, and that sometimes they are also used outside the context of armed conflict. Subsequently, both international humanitarian and human rights law can apply. The issue of access to justice, however, receives less explicit socio-political attention. Victims of armed remote pilotless aircraft strikes meet countless challenges in effectuating their right to an effective remedy. Often even a formal recognition that a strike has taken place is lacking. Furthermore, the states involved fail to publicly release information about their own investigations. This makes it difficult for those affected to substantiate their status as a victim and seek justice, including reparations. The international community should, in addition to urging involved states to independently and impartially investigate all armed drone strikes, ensure that access to an effective remedy for civilian victims, whether on an international, transnational or national level, becomes a reality.
LINK
In recent years, the fight against terrorism and political violence has focused more on anticipating the threats that they pose. Therefore, early detection of ideas by local professionals has become an important part of the preventive approach in countering radicalization. Frontline workers who operate in the arteries of society are encouraged to identify processes toward violent behavior at an early stage. To date, however, little is known about how these professionals take on this screening task at their own discretion. Research from the Netherlands suggests that subjective assessment appears to exist. In this article, we argue that the absence of a clear norm for preliminary judgments affects prejudice or administrative arbitrariness, which may cause side effects due to unjustified profiling.
DOCUMENT
Frontline professionals such as social workers and civil servants play a crucial role in countering violent extremism.Because of their direct contac twith society,first liners are tasked with detecting individuals that may threaten national security and the democratic rule of law. Preliminary screening takes place during the pre-crime phase. However, without clear evidence or concrete indicators of unlawful action or physical violence, it is challenging to determine when someone poses a threat. There are no set patterns that can be used to identify cognitive radicalization processes that will result in violent extremism. Furthermore, prevention targets ideas and ideologies with no clear framework for assessing terrorism-risk. This article examines how civil servants responsible for public order, security and safety deal with their mandate to engage in early detection, and discusses the side effects that accompany this practice. Based on openinterviews with fifteen local security professionals in the Netherlands, we focus here on the risk assessments made by these professionals. To understand their performance, we used the following two research questions: First, what criteria do local security professionals use to determine whether or not someone forms a potential risk? Second, how do local security professionals substantiate their assessments of the radicalization processes that will develop into violent extremism? We conclude that such initial risk weightings rely strongly on ‘gut feelings’ or intuition. We conclude that this subjectivitymayleadto prejudiceand/oradministrativearbitrariness in relationtopreliminary risk assessment of particular youth.
DOCUMENT
This article is about the effect of local tailored interventions to counter (violent) extremism, and therefore contributes to the academic and policy debates. It focusses on local, professional perspectives on person-specific interventions utilising a Dutch case study as the basis. The interventions are part of the wider-ranging counter terrorism policy that entails (local) measures that are deployed in relation to designated high-risk individuals and groups. By reviewing policy documents and conducting semi-structured interviews, the exploratory study concludes that the key factors for a hand-tailored intervention are a solid network, expert knowledge to assess potential signs of extremist ideology, an awareness of not having too many concurrent measures, good inter-institutional cooperation and information-sharing. The professionals involved felt that person-specific interventions have contributed to reducing the threat of religious extremism in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, municipal officials and security agents emphasised the importance of setting realistic goals and a focus on preventive rather than repressive measures. Furthermore, despite the central role that municipal actors play, they run up against problems such as cooperation within the security and care sector. National entities appear to emphasize information-gathering and monitoring more than community-focused cooperation. Thereby questioning whether, on the national level, local professionals are perceived as playing a key role in dealing with extremism.
DOCUMENT
ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.
DOCUMENT
Social network analysis can be a powerful tool to better understand the social context of terrorist activities, and it may also offer potential leads for agencies to intervene. Our access to Dutch police information allows us to analyse the relational features of two networks that include actors who planned acts of terrorism and were active in the dissemination of a Salafi-Jihadi interpretation of Islam (n = 57; n = 26). Based on a mixed-method approach that combines qualitative and more formal statistical analysis (exponential random graph models), we analyse the structural characteristics of these networks, individual positions and the extent to which radical leaders, pre-existing family and friendship ties and radicalizing settings affect actors to form ties. We find that both networks resemble a core–periphery structure, with cores formed by a densely interconnected group of actors who frequently meet in radicalizing settings. Based on our findings, we discuss the potential effects of preventive and repressive measures developed within the Dutch counterterrorism framework.
DOCUMENT
The climate crisis is an urgent and complex global challenge, requiring transformative action from diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and grassroots movements. Conventional top-down approaches to climate governance have proven insufficient (e.g. UNFCCC, COP events), necessitating a shift towards more inclusive and polycentric models that incorporate the perspectives and needs of diverse communities (Bliznetskaya, 2023; Dorsch & Flachsland, 2017). The independent, multidisciplinary approach of citizen-led activist groups can provide new insights and redefine challenges and opportunities for climate governance and regulation. Despite their important role in developing effective climate action, these citizen-led groups often face significant barriers to decision-making participation, including structural, practical, and legal challenges (Berry et al., 2019; Colli, 2021; Marquardt et al., 2022; Tayler & Schulte, 2019).
DOCUMENT
Full text via link. In de praktijk van terrorismebestrijding, waaronder ook radicalisering, lopen professionals geregeld tegen ethische dilemma’s aan. Nederland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk kennen allerlei instrumenten die besluitvorming ondersteunen bij dergelijke dilemma’s. Anke van Gorp, Stijn Hoorens en Michael Kowalski beschrijven het instrumentarium om ethische besluitvorming bij terrorismebestrijding beter te verankeren
LINK
