| Summary/Abstract |
International treaties and European directives have put new legal responsibilities on EU member states to pre-emptively monitor and prosecute terrorist activities and offences. In particular, the prosecution of terrorism financing has been an important focus to prevent material and ideological support for terrorist organisations. Yet, a clear distinction between humanitarian aid and terrorism financing in a complex war zone is not always easy to draw: Which of the involved parties is perceived as a terrorist threat, and what is exactly considered humanitarian aid work? In this paper, we empirically unpack how EU counter-terrorism laws and policies are actually practiced during court trials. We investigate the legal distinction between humanitarian aid and terrorism financing in Syria, specifically centring on trials from the Netherlands and Germany. Drawing on the growing debates in critical security and legal studies on materiality, we focus on how materials presented during trials such as baby products, weapons, and money, are inscribed with a particular security logic to reach a legal verdict. Introducing the concept of “matters of care/security”, we connect these debates and findings to insights from feminist and post-colonial studies to critically inquire how racialised and gendered assumptions on terrorist threat impact terrorism trials.
|