Brooklyn Journal of International Law


Michelle Hayek

First Page



For the past two decades, discourse on terrorism (both global and domestic) has been commonplace throughout the international sphere. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, many nations have followed suit in launching counterterrorism operations to identify and prevent attacks by both radical groups and lone actors. While the common narrative has focused on “why” terrorist actors commit heinous acts and “how” to best prevent future incidents from emerging, it is important to analyze the legal nuances between prosecuting domestic versus international terrorists. With the rise on “homegrown” domestic lone actors, nations have had to reevaluate and adapt counterterrorism statutes and legal systems to apply to actors who are often unaffiliated with previously identified terrorist organizations. Some nations have been more successful than others. This Note seeks to explore the nuances of the counterterrorism strategies and legal frameworks used to prosecute domestic terrorism of three nations—the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom—and the estimated success rates of these systems.