Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceCriminal Law and EvidenceInternational Relations and Foreign Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Legislative response to international terrorism

Epifanio, Mariaelisa·2011·Journal of Peace Research
DOI 10.1177/0022343311399130
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents a new dataset dubbed LeRIT which identifies the legislative response to international terrorism in 20 liberal Western democracies, 2001–08. The dataset distinguishes 30 regulations governments may implement with the intention of reducing the risk of terrorist attacks. LeRIT covers legislation dealing with, inter alia, the rights of the executive to intercept, collect and store communications for anti-terrorist purposes, changes in pre-charge detention for terror suspects and modifications of immigration regimes. I aggregate these distinct regulations into three composite indices, distinguishing according to the main target of regulations, citizens, suspects, and immigrants. This dataset contributes to the analysis of the consequences of international terrorism and provides a detailed account of the patterns in the legislative response to international terrorism from 2000 to 2008. I show that while all liberal Western democracies reinforced their counter-terrorist legislation, the scope of countries' regulatory response to terrorism differed largely. Some countries (i.e. the UK and the USA) implemented the full battery of regulatory responses while others (i.e. Scandinavian countries but also Canada and Switzerland) remained reluctant to cut deeply into the net of civil rights for citizens, suspects and immigrants alike. To further demonstrate the potential usefulness of the dataset, the article includes an example of analysis on the legislative response to international terrorism. The reported baseline model suggests that a combination of risk assessment and political factors influence governments' willingness to cut deep into the net of civil rights.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022343311399130

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Beckman, 2007, Comparative Legal Approaches to Homeland Security
  2. Berner, 2007, Jihad: Bin Laden in His Own Words

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Epifanio, M.
Affiliations
University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Epifanio, Mariaelisa
ORCID
Epifanio, Mariaelisa
Venue
Journal of Peace Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2011-04-08
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
399-411
ISSN
  • 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3578
DOI
10.1177/0022343311399130
OpenAlex
W1971291806
Cited by
78
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
17.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
Keywords
counter-terrorism legislation, civil liberties, immigration policy, liberal democracy, risk assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.