...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Commonwealth Law Bulletin >Must terrorists act for a cause? The motivational requirement in definitions of terrorism in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia
【24h】

Must terrorists act for a cause? The motivational requirement in definitions of terrorism in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia

机译：恐怖分子必须为某种原因行事吗？英国，加拿大，新西兰和澳大利亚在恐怖主义定义中的动机要求

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Definitions of terrorism in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries tend to provide that behaviour can constitute terrorism only if it is politically, religiously or ideologically motivated. Critics argue that this complicates prosecutions, distorts trials, and encourages racial profiling. Defenders argue that the requirement helps yield a definition which corresponds to common understandings of what terrorism entails, and limits the danger of terrorism‐related powers being abused. Part 1 of this article examines the antecedents of the requirement, part 2 examines its legal significance, and part 3 argues that it is unnecessary and undesirable. While many of the criticisms of the motivation requirement are either unpersuasive or exaggerated, defences of the requirement are not altogether convincing. While the requirement excludes from the definition some behaviour which ought not be treated as terrorism, it also excludes some socially dangerous activities which should be.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050718.2010.481400
机译：联合王国和其他英联邦国家对恐怖主义的定义倾向于规定，只有在出于政治，宗教或意识形态动机的情况下，这种行为才能构成恐怖主义。批评者认为，这使起诉变得复杂，扭曲了审判，并鼓励了种族歧视。辩护者争辩说，该要求有助于产生一个定义，该定义与对恐怖主义具有什么意义的普遍理解相对应，并限制了与恐怖主义有关的权力被滥用的危险。本文的第1部分检查了需求的前提，第2部分检查了其法律意义，第3部分则认为这是不必要和不希望的。尽管对动力需求的许多批评要么没有说服力，要么被夸大了，但对动力需求的辩护并没有说服力。尽管该要求从定义中排除了不应视为恐怖主义的某些行为，但也排除了应有的某些危害社会的活动。查看全文下载全文，netvibes，twitter，technorati，可口，linkedin，facebook，stumbleupon，digg，google，更多”，发布：“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050718.2010.481400

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号