- Business - 11:00 New education project launched in Manchester
- Medicine - Sep 19 People with dementia fail to get specialist care despite huge needs
- Medicine - Sep 18 Imperial wins funds for medical technology
- Administration - Sep 14 A UK-EU free trade deal could cushion Brexit blow in certain sectors, research shows
- Business - Sep 13 Brexit is a major source of uncertainty for UK firms, according to a new survey
- Medicine - Sep 13 Imanova acquired by Invicro to expand world- leading imaging services
- Administration - Sep 13 Uncoordinated International Ban on Terrorist Kidnap-for- Ransom Demands Leaves Citizens at Greater Risk
- Medicine - Sep 11 PhD scholarship to help transform community pharmacy 2025 vision
- Administration - Sep 11 Hopes for deal on EU research rise as Provost mounts Brussels mission
- Administration - Sep 11 Signing seals world’s first compound semiconductor cluster
- Medicine - Sep 11 Researchers help develop new diagnostic test for African sleeping sickness
- Environment - Sep 8 University of Sussex expert calls for Brexit to Revolutionise sustainable farming
Uncoordinated International Ban on Terrorist Kidnap-for-Ransom Demands Leaves Citizens at Greater Risk
- Despite a UN ban, there is no international consensus on the non-payment of terrorist-related ransoms
- The lack of a unified approach puts the lives of citizens of all nationalities at greater risk, and allows terrorist groups to secure supernormal ransoms, boosting their ability to mount attacks and conduct further kidnappings
- A new approach is needed to ‘close the gap between those who uphold their obligation not to pay ransoms to terrorists and those who do not.’
The uncoordinated international ban on the payment of kidnap ransoms to terrorist groups could prove to be counter-productive and leave citizens at greater risk, argues a new RUSI report.
Published by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the report highlights how there is a wide gap between those countries who abide by UN Security Council Resolutions and do not pay kidnap ransoms to terrorist groups under any circumstances, and those countries who ‘prioritise the immediate preservation of life over their counterterrorism commitments.’
As such, the status quo ‘increases the returns from kidnapping for groups designated as terrorist organisations by the UN and increases the terrorist threat to citizens of all states.’
‘When some governments negotiate on behalf of their citizens, kidnapper expectations and ransoms escalate. Terrorists abuse hostages whose governments refuse to negotiate in order to raise the pressure on countries which do. Because of the official ban, government negotiations are conducted in secret. This makes it more difficult to share information that might assist negotiation strategies, help track the money and identify the perpetrators after ransoms are paid.’
Entitled ‘Closing the Gap: Assessing Responses to Terrorist-Related Kidnap-for-Ransom’, the paper is written by Anja Shortland, Reader in Political Economy at King’s College London and Tom Keatinge, Director of RUSI’s Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies.
The paper offers three approaches to improve the current situation:
1. Consensus for a Universally Observed Ban
A global, rigorously applied and scrupulously monitored commitment to prevent any concessions to terrorist organisations. This would eliminate hostage-taking as a source of terrorist finance, although terrorists might still kidnap for propaganda purposes. However, the paper shows that the international community remains polarised and is not ready to commit to enforcing such a ban.
2. Resolve Privately, No Government Involvement
Governments exit from the market for hostage negotiations and decriminalise private resolutions of terrorist hostage incidents. The insurance sector already offers effective solutions for the prevention and resolution of criminal kidnappings. These solutions would become available for those exposed to the risk of terrorist kidnap.
3. A New Framework That Manages Divergent Approaches
A new policy framework modelled on existing private sector solutions. Private entities would be allowed to make financial concessions, but governments would create effective (multilateral) institutions to monitor and minimise such payments.
Anja Shortland states: ‘The negative unintended consequences of the status quo are clear. A partially applied ban, where some governments make concessions to terrorists and negotiate on behalf of their citizens leads to a rise in kidnapper expectations and an escalation of ransom demands.’
Tom Keatinge further notes that: ‘The result of this uncoordinated response is that terrorist kidnappers abuse hostages whose governments refuse to negotiate in order to raise the pressure on countries which do.
Unless governments agree on a common response to terrorist-related kidnap-for-ransom, more citizens will be kidnapped, ever-higher ransoms will be demanded and paid and terrorists will continue to raise valuable funding to mount further attacks.’NOTES TO EDITORS
Last job offers
- Arts and Design - 15.9
Assistant Professor in Music
- Business/Economics - 13.9
Professor of Marketing
- Business/Economics - 13.9
Lecturer (Assistant Professor)/Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Marketing
- Mechanical Engineering - 8.9
Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering
- Business/Economics - 8.9
Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Accounting and Finance
- Computer Science/Telecom - 31.8
Atkins - Cranfield Professor / Reader in Cyber-Secure Eng Systems & Processes
- Computer Science/Telecom - 25.8
Chair in Cyber Security
- Business/Economics - 23.8
Chair in Combinatorics - 57874