Description
Governments continue to grapple with legal and political ramifications posed by repatriating foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs). Inconsistent approaches to repatriating FTFs have highlighted differences between legal systems across Europe, Asia, and North America. In England and Wales, growing interest in the repatriation and prosecution of terrorists has outlined obstacles to effective research of terrorism trials and legal decision-making processes. The law is a governmental instrument which regulates society, and the courtroom is an essential arena for upholding these laws and legal decision-making processes. Despite the transparency of justice being a central tenet of democratic governance, research barriers persist. Dismantling obstructions to courtroom research is key to promoting legal transparency and accountability, understanding how appropriate legal responses to terrorism are articulated and enforced, and drawing attention to the potential impact of implicit biases in the prosecution of terrorists in the criminal justice system. The study of terrorism trials and sentencing is an interdisciplinary endeavour which allows for the fields of Law, Terrorism Studies, and Criminology to investigate intersections between criminality, justice, and national security. However, relatively little work has explored these junctures. This talk outlines methodological, practical, and conceptual barriers which hamper research of terrorism trials in England and Wales and looks to suggest new methods which can promote transparent interdisciplinary legal research.
