英国反恐立法研究

发布时间：2018-06-22 20:38

本文选题：英国 + 恐怖主义　；参考：《山东大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：不论从历史上纵观还是着眼于现实,英国的恐怖主义问题是众多欧洲国家中最为显著者。英国在长期与恐怖主义的对抗中形成了众多反恐与治安部门。本文以反恐怖立法为研究对象,开篇首先对与恐怖主义有关的理论进行了简单介绍,包括恐怖主义与恐怖主义犯罪、恐怖主义与人权保障、恐怖主义与刑事立法和英国反恐机构的多元化。如此安排,意图有二：一是在进行理论介绍的同时总结国内学者在相关领域的研究成果,从而找到本文研究的切入点,明确研究价值所在；二是为下文英国反恐怖刑事立法的介绍建立参照系,便于提出相关问题和读者阅读。第二章着眼于对英国反恐立法进行历史考察。其反恐怖立法可以追溯到19世纪末期和20世纪初期。当时流行的立法思路是用刑法规制恐怖分子,并在普通刑法下对其进行起诉。这种思路被沿用到现在,如今在英国立法中,很大一部分的反恐立法仍旧采用刑事手段。第三章紧衔上文,说明进入本世纪后,英国首先制定了永久法案《2000年恐怖主义法案》,然后以频繁的频率对其进行修订,分别出台了《2001年反恐怖、犯罪与安全法案》、《2005年预防恐怖主义法案》、《2006年恐怖主义法案》、《2008年反恐怖法案》以及可以期待的《2011年恐怖分子财产冻结法案》。几乎每一次大的恐怖袭击就会催生一部法案,而政府已经习惯于用大量的立法和罪名的增加安抚民众的惊恐情绪和掩饰政府的无力姿态。与这一部部法案一同增加的不仅是定义的扩张和罪名的增加,还有长篇类卷的法院判例和人权质疑。第四章通过对比英国在21世纪前后的反恐立法和分析进入21世纪以后反恐立法的趋势,提出本文的分析,认为英国的反恐立法不仅在数量上有了不断增加的明显趋势,在反恐措施与手段方面也日趋多样化。恐怖主义定义的扩张带来了国际与国内的舆论压力和司法挑战。同时对恐怖主义的制裁已经不像90年代及从前仅仅局限于刑事起诉,对恐怖主义的定义也加注了大量主观主义因素。更明显的趋势是反恐立法日渐从刑事法律中脱离出来,反恐手段超越刑事领域,呈现刑事立法、财政控制、政府政策三管齐下的状态。在进行各个方面的趋势分析的同时,本文分别表达了对各个趋势的看法。针对以上分析,第五章从更加深入的角度提出我们从英国反恐怖刑事政策中可以吸取的经验和值得警惕的事宜。对待恐怖主义固然应该多方面考虑,但是法学本身的体系化思维却不能放弃,刑法和刑事诉讼的原则理念亦不能搁置。刑法打击犯罪的手段多样化,恐怖主义犯罪打击手段中有些完全可以并入刑罚种类。对已实施的恐怖主义犯罪,打击手段完全可以并入刑罚手段之中；对发出的恐怖主义威胁,根据刑法不对准备行为实施刑罚的基本原理,也应排除出法案规范对象；某些财政手段可以以财产刑的方式加以深化；对恐怖主义犯罪的预防,也应吸取对一般犯罪预防的经验,实施多部门合作,综合治理。
[Abstract]:The British terrorism is the most prominent in many European countries, both in history and in view of reality. Britain has formed numerous anti-terrorism and public security departments in the long-term confrontation with terrorism. This article, taking anti terrorist legislation as the research object, begins with a brief introduction to the theory related to terrorism. It includes terrorism and terrorism crime, terrorism and human rights protection, terrorism and criminal legislation and the diversity of British counter-terrorism institutions. This arrangement is intended to be two: one is to summarize the research results of domestic scholars in the related fields and to find the breakthrough point of this study and to make clear research value. The two is to set up a reference frame for the introduction of the British anti terrorist criminal legislation, so as to facilitate relevant questions and readers' reading.
The second chapter focuses on the historical investigation of British counter-terrorism legislation. Its anti terrorist legislation can be traced back to the late nineteenth Century and the early twentieth Century. The popular legislative idea was to regulate terrorists by criminal law and to prosecute it under ordinary criminal law. This idea was used now, and now a large part of the British legislation is countered. The third chapter concludes that after this century, the British first enacted the <2000 terrorism act of the permanent bill, and then revised it with frequent frequencies, introducing the anti terrorism, crime and safety act of <2001, the terrorism prevention act of 2005, the terrorism act of <2006. The case, the anti terrorist act of <2008, and the <2011 terrorist property freeze bill that can be expected. Almost every major terrorist attack will lead to a bill, and the government is used to soothe the people's panic and disguise the government's inability to use a large number of legislation and charges. It is not only the expansion of definitions and accusations, but also the court precedents and human rights questions of long volumes.
In the fourth chapter, by comparing the anti terrorism legislation and analysis of Britain's anti-terrorism legislation before and after the twenty-first Century and the trend of anti-terrorism legislation after the twenty-first Century, this paper puts forward the analysis that the anti terrorist legislation in Britain not only has an increasing trend in quantity, but also diversities in the measures and means of counter-terrorism. The expansion of the definition of terrorism has brought the country. The pressure on public opinion and the challenge of the judiciary at the same time. At the same time, the sanctions on terrorism have not been limited to criminal prosecution only in 90s and before, and a large number of subjectivism factors are added to the definition of terrorism. The more obvious trend is that the legislation of counter-terrorism is gradually removed from the criminal law, and the means of counter-terrorism surpass the criminal field. The state of criminal legislation, financial control, and government policy. At the same time, this article expresses the views on each trend respectively.
In view of the above analysis, the fifth chapter puts forward the experience that we can draw from the criminal policy of Anti Terror in Britain and matters worthy of vigilance from a more deep perspective. Although it should be considered in many respects, the systematic thinking of law itself can not be abandoned, and the principle of criminal law and criminal procedure can not be put aside. The means of combating crime are diversified, and some of the means of combating terrorism can be fully incorporated into the category of punishment. For the terrorist crimes that have been carried out, the means of attack can be fully incorporated into the means of punishment; the threat to terrorism issued should also be ruled out according to the basic principles of the criminal law that does not carry out the punishment on the act of preparation. Some financial means can be deepened in the way of property punishment; the prevention of terrorism crime should also absorb the experience of prevention of general crime, implement multi department cooperation and comprehensive governance.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D956.1;DD914

【参考文献】