Countering Extremism: Why Choices of War, Criminal Law or Terrorism Matter

Abstract

When and why do states define and prosecute harmful conduct as criminal, and when as war or terror? What political and instrumental considerations inform these choices, how and why do they change over time, and with what outcomes? The pressure to avert future atrocities not only informs preventive laws and measures but also impels states to identify and tackle extremist ideologies “further up the field.” There is no internationally agreed legal definition of extremism. Whereas most countries target “violent extremism,” violence is not a requirement of the UK non-statutory definition, which targets ideology over conduct. Eluding law, extremism is not prosecuted through courts or military tribunals but pursued in communities and public institutions. This exploration of the UK’s struggle to define and tackle the growing threat posed by extremism reveals difficult legal and political challenges, as well as costs for democratic participation and rights.