The ultimate aim of this article is to analyse the role of the rising and already-existent regional courts in adjudicating terrorism as it appears in the Public International Law against the wider framework of global counter-terrorism struggle, with a special focus on the emerging category of cybercrimes/cyberterrorism, all exceptionally challenging due to the absence of the universally-agreed legal definitions or agreement on the elements constituting either of these crimes. Applying comparative law, we proceed to assess whether and how different legal frameworks and traditions – such as civil law, common law, sharia law and socialist/communist law – affect judicial cooperation between territories and regional institutions. A distinction between the first- and second-generation institutions is also made, with the conclusion that the latter (as organizations focused on trade and economic issues) drive judicial cooperation more effectively due to their more neutral outlook and greater incentives for the member-states pursuing their national interests, to comply with the rules.
|Number of pages||44|
|Publication status||Published - 6 Sept 2017|