Nelson Pérez Villarroel

Universidad de la Rioja

DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2025.v4i1n29

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

The United States and the European Union employ divergent strategies for classifying terrorist organizations, reflecting their priorities and legal frameworks. The U.S. system, led by the Department of State, is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, prioritizing the protection of national interests and rapid responses to emerging threats. It includes groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the FARC, assessed based on their threat to national security, terrorist activity, and foreign nature. The European Union operates under Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, requiring judicial evidence to include organizations on its list. This approach emphasizes cooperation among member states and transparency but may be slower when addressing urgent threats. Examples of listed groups include Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PKK, evaluated based on terrorist acts, impact on member states, and legal proceedings. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. While the U.S. acts swiftly and flexibly, its lack of transparency may draw criticism (Hoffman, 2006). In contrast, the EU ensures greater legitimacy through legal processes, though with less agility (Guild & Bigo, 2019). These differences underscore the need for a balance between speed and legitimacy in global counterterrorism efforts. Ideally, combining these models could optimize the response to terrorism, addressing both immediate security needs and the protection of human rights and democratic principles (Helfer, 2020).

KEYWORDS:

strategies, threats, national security

REFERENCES

1) Bruce, G. (2013). Definition of terrorism: Social and political perspectives. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41(1), 15–22.

2) Bures, O. (2018). EU counterterrorism policy: A paper tiger? Ashgate.

3) Chalk, P. (1996). The liberal democratic response to terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 8(4), 14–32.

4) Clarke, R. A., & Newman, R. K. (2006). Waging modern war: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the future of combat. PublicAffairs.

5) Crelinsten, R. D. (2009). Counterterrorism. Polity Press.

6) Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos. (1996). Immigration and Nationality Act.

7) Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). Recuperado de https://www.state.gov (consultado en 2024).

8) Guild, E., & Bigo, D. (2019). Policing terrorism in Europe: Rethinking laws and practices. Routledge. 9

) Gunning, J. (2009). Hamas in politics: Democracy, religion, violence. Columbia University Press.

10) Helfer, L. R. (2020). The rule of law and counter-terrorism strategies: Balancing security and rights. Cambridge University Press.

11) Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press.

12) Lazarus, L. (2023). Terrorism and the rule of law: Challenges for liberal democracies. Oxford University Press.

13) Mickolus, E. F. (2014). Terrorism, 2008–2012: A worldwide chronology. McFarland.

14) Neumann, P. R. (2009). Old and new terrorism: Late modernity, globalization and the transformation of political violence. Polity Press.

15) Real Instituto Elcano. (2023). Análisis de las políticas antiterroristas en EE.UU. y la UE. Schmid, A. P. (2011). The Routledge handbook of terrorism research. Routledge.

16) Unión Europea. (2001). Posición Común 931/2001/JAI.

17) Unión Europea. Lista de organizaciones terroristas. Reglamento (UE) 2580/2001. Recuperado de https://www.europa.eu (consultado en 2024).

18) UNODC. (2023). Terrorism prevention and international cooperation.

19) Weinberg, L., Pedahzur, A., & Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004). Political parties and terrorist groups. Routledge.

20) Wilkinson, P. (2011). Terrorism versus democracy: The liberal state response. Routledge

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 01 JANUARY 2025