2012 and Paris on 7 January 2015
), have precipitated further, energetic engage-
ment: a comprehensive edited collection by Fiona de Londras and Josephine
Doody attests to the richness and variety of the field.
As Christina Eckes notes
in her survey of one of the main areas of activity, we now have 29 different sanc-
tion regimes operating within the EU, 13 of them are responses to United Nations
(UN) interventions but the rest are autonomous to the EU.
Cian Murphy’s mono-
graph likewise traces in detail the plethora of measures in the fields of, inter alia, money
laundering, data retention and warrants of arrest that have flowed under this broad
The era of EU counter-terrorism has clearly well and truly arrived, fed on a
dependable diet of recurring atrocity.
But why, or—more specifically—why now? More than any other region, it had been
Europe that had been exposed to the worst of international terrorism in the 1970s and
1980s, Member States had seen their airports turned into killing fields, their cities
bombed, a cruise ship hijacked, even one of the world’s greatest sporting events made
infamous by a spectacular massacre of athletes from the wrong country.
this were not enough, many of the old common market countries had their own
problems with indigenous violent subversion—the Red Army Faction in Germany,
the CCC in Belgium, the Red Brigades in Italy and the Corsican Liberation Front
in France—andwithnewmemberscame alsonewproblems—the British and Irish
brought the IRA and the Spanish the Basque nationalist group, ETA.
And yet about
this inferno not merely on the doorstep but within the house itself, there came
barely a murmur from the EU (as it was not then called). The occasional speech
by a concerned functionary, some desultory calls for action from the European
Parliament: little more.
The change of personality so evident in the response to 2001 is, as Eckes has
observed, popular with governments that ‘consider the EU in principle better placed
to adopt not only comprehensive embargoes but also targeted sanctions’.
On the Paris attacks, see D. Bigo, E. Brouwer, S. Carrera, E. Guild, E. Guittet, J. Jeandesboz, F. Ragazzi
and A. Scherrer, ‘The EU Counter-terrorism Policy Responses to the Attacks in Paris. Towards an EU and
Security Agenda’,CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, No 81, February 2015, available at
F. de Londras and J. Do ody (eds), The Impact, Legitimacy, and Effectiveness of EU Counter-terrorism
(Routledge,2015). For the Durham UniversitySECILE project, see DurhamLaw School Research Briefing
No 14, availableat https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/law/research/TheImpactLegitimacyAndEffectiveness
C. Eckes, ‘EU Restrictive Measures against Natural and Legal Persons: From Counter-terrorist to Third
Country Sanctions’, (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review 869–906.
C. C. Murphy, EU Counter-terrorism Law Pre-emption and the Rule of Law (Hart Publishing, 2012).
Respectively, the attacks in Rome and Vienna airports in 1985 and Athens airport in 1973; bombed cities
would include London, Paris and Milan, on occasions too many to mention; the Achille Lauro cruise ship
hijack in 1985; and the attack on the Munich Olympics in 1972. For the details, see the full account from
the period of most activity that covers the European situation extensively in P. Wilkinson and A. Stewart
(eds), Contemporary Research on Terrorism (Aberdeen University Press, 1987). A critical perspective on the
idea of ‘international terrorism’is offered by R. Jackson, L. Jarvis, J. Gunning and M. Breen Smith,
Terrorism. A Critical Introduction (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
See the special issue on ‘Terrorist Movements in Twentieth Century Europe’, (2007) 14 (3) European
Review of History. C. A. Gearty, Terror (Faber and Faber, 1991) has short accounts of many of the core
S. Peers, ‘EU Responses to Terrorism’, (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 227–243
briefly covers the slight pre-2001.
Eckes, above, n 8 at 872.
The State of Freedom in EuropeNovember 2015
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 707