One increasingly prevalent method (Forest, 2012 Miller, 2017,) is ‘Kidnapping for Ransom’ (KFR). After all, finances are the lifeblood of terrorist organisations without financial support they are unable to perform their training exercises, propaganda and recruitment activities, and, above all, to carry out their next attack. Brill.Terrorism networks have proven to be original and determined, going to great lengths to attain the funds they so desperately need. In International Legal Dimension of Terrorism (pp. The European Union's Response to Terrorism. International Negotiation, 8(3), 469-494.įernandez-Sanchez, P. Negotiating with terrorists: The hostage case. Terrorism and Political Violence, 4(4), 263-287.įaure, G. Government involving itself in a legal and holistic process that would save lives should be applauded and implemented.Ĭlutterbuck, R. Therefore, negotiations should not be dismissed fast unless there are doubts and illegal dealings involved during the process the government should observe that democratic protocol is upheld. Proving that the government can trust hostage takers, it grants them the confidence of transforming their ways legitimately. Securing hostages proves the determination of the government towards delegitimizing inhuman activities while portraying alternation techniques of responsible dialogue while pursuing to apprehend the criminals.įurthermore, negotiating with hostage takers might create an epiphany about changing their ways. The government should engage legally with terrorists through seeking their weakness and dismantle the regime and emphasize the illegal nature of the group (Faure, 2003). Saving the hostages in the hands of terrorists ascertains that the government is transparent and accountable. Regardless of the facade maintained by the government against negotiating with terrorists, communication continues in the darkness as they counterterrorism. However, the government has the duty towards ensuring the safety of its citizens. Furthermore, the negotiation process might promote manipulation and deception thus, aggravating the dire situation. When the hostage-takers coerce the government to comply, the situation might encourage more violence or increase of kidnapping whereas the state is expected to protect citizens. Compromising portrays the government weakly to terrorists and complying with their requests establishes and fuels inhuman regimen (Clutterbuck, 1992). Governments are demanded to never embrace violence and blackmail by rewarding the terrorists with what they require. The government maintains its ground because of the moral dimension to protect the citizens and fights against terrorism thus, complying with terrorists' compromises both ethical standards. Additionally, the government must prohibit the third party from aiding terrorists in complying with their ransom demands or political concessions. However, this does not imply that the government is restricted from remote communications with terrorists, only prohibits it from being coerced to fulfill the terrorists' demands. Resolution 2199 establishes an international legal formality that prohibits terrorists' negotiations by condemning any opportunity that the hostage-takers should exploit (Fernandez-Sanchez, 2008). The approach ascertains that terrorists should not benefit directly or indirectly from the compromises or political concessions during the hostage situation. The diplomacy theory has strictly advocated for lack of communication to terrorists including the negotiations, immunity, and amnesties. Therefore, it is ethical for the government to adopt a strategy towards negotiating with hostage takers and ensure that measured morally and legally coherent responses are provided. The interactions with the terrorists have assisted several governments to maintain contact and identify the perpetrators of the terrorism. The argument rises with the fact that negotiation creates an opportunity for concessions, but proponents suggest that the process creates a chance for the hostages to survive the ordeal while the perpetrators are identified and pursued. The governments should not be quick to strike substantive concessions to terrorists, but that does not imply that they should not communicate with hostage takers. However, it is ethical to negotiate with terrorists with the intention of apprehending them once the hostages have been released. ![]() The situation has subjected the hostages to being victims of a hostage situation. Most governments led by the United States have maintained a front of not negotiating with terrorists. The responsibility of a country is embedded in ensuring its citizens' security.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |