What has the approach of the Netherlands to counter-terrorism been and to what extent is it consistent with the values of Dutch criminal law and European human rights obligations?
Introduction
Recent terrorist events are habitually cited as justification for an unprecedented proliferation of counter-terrorism policies across Europe and the world. There appears to be widespread international consensus that collective security and protection is of greater importance than individual security from interference by the State when it comes to terrorism. Furthermore, long established principles of law are beginning to be challenged by this reactionary form of law-making. In the Netherlands the murder of cinematographer, Theo Van Gogh, is commonly used as justification for this increase in counter-terrorism policies. In this essay we will look at the counter-terrorist obligations of the Netherlands deriving from membership of the European Union, and the measures employed in this regard. We then analyse the specific provisions of “terrorist objective” introduced into Dutch criminal law and the preliminary powers of investigation introduced into Dutch criminal procedure and examine the legitimacy and application of these measures within these systems. Furthermore, Dutch counter-terrorism measures are still governed by the minimum requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and so their compliance with these obligations will be evaluated. We then conclude whether the “Dutch approach” is effective and highlight the dangers of such a harsh approach.
The Dutch approach
There are three ways a political system can characterise terrorist acts: as war-like actions, disturbances of public order, or criminal acts. The Netherlands has recently legislated profusely in order to criminalise terrorist conduct in response to European obligations and general political and social concerns about public security. This is in stark contrast to the traditional approach of the 1970’s