“Effective international action against terrorism requires a strong cooperation at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels”
Australia is a signatory nation to 11 of the 12 international instruments dealing with terrorism. International law has proved effective at providing a guideline for Australia's domestic legal response to terrorism. Most of Australia's domestic laws were introduced in order to implement international treaties. An example of this is the Crimes (Aviation) act 1991, which implemented three different treaties.
The 2001 Attacks on New York highlighted the need for Australia to sign two treaties. The first of these was the international convention for the suppression of Terrorist bombings (1887), which made it a universal offence to intentionally use explosive devises against a public place with intent to cause death or serious injury or cause major economic loss. This Convention was implemented under the Criminal code amendment (suppression of Terrorist bombings) Act 2002.
The International convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism (1999) requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract all financing of terrorists, and requires states to hold those who finance terrorists accountable. It also provides for the freezing of assets and funds of terrorists.
This treaty was implemented under the suppression of the Financing of terrorism act 2002. These examples show that international law can be effective in creating a framework for a domestic response, and can regulate policies between different countries on the issue of global terrorism.
For a law to be effective, it must reflect community standards. The key to the effectiveness of international law is that the international community must have similar standards. Success in this area can be demonstrated by the different countries that have signed the various counter-terrorism treaties. The sustaining of positive diplomatic relations between countries is an effective motivation for adhering to a treaty.
The following quote shows why international law can be effective as a counter-terrorism measure:
“The best defense of our Security lies in the spread of our values. But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognizes their universality. If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules.”
- Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Another measure of the effectiveness of an international law is if is resource efficient. The war in Afghanistan (specifically Australia's involvement) is an example of the effectiveness of coordinated international action. Soldiers of Australia's special air service regiment assisted soldiers from many different nations in defeat of the Taliban and the strong Al-Qaeda presence. It is much more effective for countries to create allies when fighting terrorism.
It is important that a law effectively balances the rights of society and the individual. The nature of the United Nations is that it concentrates more on the good of society as a whole than individual people. The impact of anti-terrorism laws on human rights is outlined in the previous section of this report.
The effectiveness of international law in dealing with global terrorism is greatly limited by State sovereignty. Treaties hold no power unless they are incorporated into domestic legislation. There is an International court of Justice that could make rulings on breaches of these treaties, but participation in the ICJ is strictly voluntary. Even if a country did agree to accept the rulings of the ICJ, the lack of an international police force means that the court has no real power to enforce its rulings.
