Introduction

Terrorism remains one of the most significant threats to global peace and security, transcending national borders and impacting societies on multiple levels. A key component of terrorist activities is the financial support that sustains their operations, making the suppression of terrorist financing a critical element in the fight against terrorism. The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1999, through Resolution 54/109, stands as a pivotal international instrument designed to address this issue. This article examines the ICSFT in depth, exploring its provisions, the legal mechanisms for states to enter into treaties like the ICSFT, and the implications for domestic incorporation of its principles. It also addresses the monist versus dualist approaches to international treaties, the process of translating treaties into national law, and the relationship between the ICSFT and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969. While the specific context of “this country” will be discussed as a hypothetical state to reflect common practices, the analysis aims to offer broader insights for the international community combating terrorist financing.

Overview of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

The ICSFT was a response to the growing recognition that financial resources play a fundamental role in enabling terrorist acts. The Convention seeks to criminalize the financing of terrorism and establish a framework for international cooperation to prevent and suppress such activities. It has been widely ratified, with over 180 state parties as of recent years, reflecting a global consensus on the need to address this issue.

The ICSFT defines terrorist financing in Article 2, stating that a person commits an offense if they “by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provide or collect funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, to carry out” acts of terrorism as defined by other international instruments or acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to civilians. This broad definition captures a wide range of financing activities, ensuring that states can address both direct and indirect financial support for terrorism.

Other key provisions include the obligation for states to criminalize terrorist financing under their domestic laws (Article 4), to identify, freeze, and seize funds used for terrorist activities (Article 8), and to cooperate internationally through mutual legal assistance and extradition (Articles 10–17). These articles collectively establish a comprehensive legal regime that requires states to adapt their national frameworks to meet international standards. The ICSFT does not merely encourage compliance; it imposes binding obligations on state parties to enact and enforce measures against terrorist financing.

Legal Mechanisms for Entering Treaties under the ICSFT Framework

The ICSFT outlines the process by which states can become parties to the Convention, aligning with general principles of international law regarding treaty accession. Article 24 of the ICSFT specifies that the Convention is open for signature by all states and that states may express their consent to be bound by signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession must be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who serves as the depositary. This provision ensures a clear and standardized process for states to legally enter into the treaty.

For a hypothetical state—referred to here as “this country”—the ability to enter into treaties such as the ICSFT depends on its domestic constitutional framework and international legal capacity. Under international law, states are sovereign entities with the inherent right to enter into treaties, as affirmed by the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). The ICSFT’s procedural requirements for entry, as stipulated in Article 24, do not impose additional barriers beyond standard treaty practice. Thus, “this country” can legally join the ICSFT by following these steps: signing the treaty (if still open for signature), obtaining domestic approval according to its constitutional processes (e.g., legislative or executive assent), and depositing the necessary instrument with the UN Secretary-General. The Convention enters into force for the state on the thirtieth day after the deposit of the instrument, as per Article 26.

The ICSFT’s accessibility to all states reflects the inclusive nature of the instrument, designed to foster broad participation to combat a transnational threat. This universality is critical, as terrorist financing often involves cross-border networks that require coordinated global responses. Therefore, “this country,” like any other state, can engage with the ICSFT provided it adheres to the formalities outlined in the treaty and aligns its domestic processes with the obligations therein.

Monist vs. Dualist Approaches to Treaties: The Case of “This Country”

The incorporation of international treaties like the ICSFT into domestic law varies depending on whether a state adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law. These two philosophies govern the relationship between international and domestic legal systems and significantly influence how treaties are translated into enforceable national laws.

In a monist system, international law and domestic law form part of a unified legal order. Once a state ratifies a treaty, it automatically becomes part of domestic law without the need for additional legislative action. Monist states view international law as superior or equal to national law, and treaties can often be directly invoked in domestic courts. In contrast, a dualist system treats international and domestic law as separate legal orders. In such systems, a treaty does not have domestic effect until it is incorporated through specific national legislation or other formal processes, often referred to as an “act of transformation.”

For the purposes of this analysis, let us assume that “this country” follows a dualist approach, which is common among states with a British legal tradition or similar systems. In a dualist framework, as noted in resources on international legal incorporation, treaties ratified by the state do not automatically become part of domestic law. Instead, the government must enact enabling legislation to give the treaty provisions the force of law within the national legal system. For “this country,” therefore, ratifying the ICSFT under Article 24 would be only the first step. To fulfill its obligations under the Convention—such as criminalizing terrorist financing under Article 4 or establishing mechanisms to freeze terrorist funds under Article 8—specific laws must be passed by the national legislature to mirror these provisions domestically.

This dualist approach has practical implications for compliance with the ICSFT. While ratification signals international commitment, the absence of incorporating legislation could result in a gap between international obligations and domestic enforcement. This is a critical concern, as the effectiveness of the ICSFT relies on robust national implementation. For instance, if “this country” fails to pass laws criminalizing the collection of funds for terrorism as required by Article 2, it could become a weak link in the global fight against terrorist financing, potentially undermining international cooperation efforts mandated by Articles 10–17.

In contrast, if “this country” were a monist state, the ICSFT provisions would theoretically apply directly upon ratification, subject to constitutional limitations or judicial interpretation. However, even in monist systems, practical implementation often requires regulatory or administrative measures to ensure effective enforcement. Thus, regardless of the approach, translating the ICSFT into national law involves deliberate action by state authorities.

Translating the ICSFT into National Law: Challenges and Processes

The process of translating international treaties into national law is a complex endeavor shaped by a state’s legal traditions, political will, and institutional capacity. Under the ICSFT, state parties are required to adopt specific measures to criminalize and prevent terrorist financing, which necessitates aligning domestic legislation with the treaty’s standards. Article 4 explicitly mandates that each state party ensure that offenses related to terrorist financing are established in their domestic law, while Article 6 requires that these offenses be punishable by appropriate penalties that reflect their grave nature.

For “this country,” adhering to a dualist approach, the process of incorporation would typically involve several steps. First, following ratification as per Article 24 of the ICSFT, the executive branch (or relevant authority) would present the treaty to the national legislature for domestication. This might entail drafting a specific statute that incorporates the definitions and obligations of the ICSFT, such as defining terrorist financing in line with Article 2 or establishing mechanisms for asset freezing under Article 8. The legislation would need to be debated and passed, ensuring that it integrates with existing criminal and financial laws without creating legal conflicts.

One challenge in this process is ensuring that domestic laws are comprehensive enough to cover the scope of the ICSFT. For example, Article 2 includes indirect financing and the intention behind providing funds, concepts that may not align with existing definitions of financial crimes in “this country.” Legislative drafters would need to carefully adapt these provisions to ensure clarity and enforceability in the domestic context. Additionally, political resistance or resource constraints could delay the incorporation process, leaving “this country” in non-compliance with its international obligations.

Another consideration is the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying the incorporated law. Even after legislation is passed, courts in a dualist system may face challenges in harmonizing international obligations with national priorities. Training for law enforcement and judicial officials becomes essential to ensure consistent application of ICSFT-aligned laws. Moreover, under Article 18, states are encouraged to enhance international cooperation, which may require “this country” to amend existing extradition or mutual legal assistance frameworks, adding another layer of complexity to the domestication process.

Ultimately, translating the ICSFT into national law demands a coordinated effort across multiple branches of government. While the dualist approach provides a structured pathway for incorporation, it places the onus on “this country” to proactively enact and enforce legislation that mirrors the Convention’s intent. Comparative studies of other dualist states, such as those with British-influenced legal systems, suggest that successful implementation often hinges on sustained political commitment and international assistance, particularly for capacity-building in financial monitoring and law enforcement.

Relationship Between the ICSFT and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), adopted in 1969, is widely regarded as the cornerstone of international treaty law, codifying customary practices regarding the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. Given its foundational role, it is pertinent to examine whether the ICSFT is a party to the VCLT or governed by its principles, and how this relationship informs other countries on entering into treaties like the ICSFT.

Firstly, it is important to clarify that treaties themselves are not “parties” to the VCLT; rather, the VCLT applies to states that are parties to it and governs the treaties they enter into. The VCLT came into force on January 27, 1980, and applies to treaties concluded after that date between states that are parties to the VCLT, as per its Article 4. However, many of its provisions are considered reflective of customary international law, meaning they apply even to states or treaties outside the VCLT’s formal scope. The ICSFT, adopted in 1999, falls within the temporal scope of the VCLT, and its formation, signature, ratification, and entry into force processes (as outlined in Articles 24–26 of the ICSFT) conform to the principles laid out in the VCLT, such as those in Articles 11–15 on means of expressing consent to be bound and Articles 19–23 on reservations.

While the ICSFT does not explicitly reference the VCLT, its procedural alignment suggests that it operates within the broader framework of treaty law as codified by the VCLT. For states that are parties to both the VCLT and the ICSFT, the VCLT provides the interpretive and operational guidance for fulfilling treaty obligations, including rules on pacta sunt servanda (Article 26 of the VCLT) and good faith implementation. For states not party to the VCLT, the customary nature of many VCLT provisions ensures that the fundamental principles still apply. Therefore, “this country,” whether a party to the VCLT or not, would be expected to adhere to these norms when engaging with the ICSFT.

The relationship between the ICSFT and the VCLT has broader implications for how other countries can properly enter into treaties like the ICSFT. The VCLT’s standardized processes for treaty-making—such as signature, ratification, and the role of depositaries (as seen in Article 24 of the ICSFT)—provide a clear roadmap for states. Other countries can look to the VCLT’s principles to ensure their entry into the ICSFT is legally sound, avoiding ambiguities that could lead to disputes or non-compliance. For instance, under Article 18 of the VCLT, states are obliged not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force, a principle that would apply to the ICSFT and guide states in maintaining the integrity of their commitments during the ratification process.

Moreover, the VCLT’s provisions on reservations (Articles 19–23) are relevant for states considering partial commitments to the ICSFT. While the ICSFT itself limits reservations that are incompatible with its object and purpose (Article 24(2)), the VCLT provides the procedural framework for making and objecting to such reservations. This ensures that other countries can navigate potential limitations in their domestic capacity while still joining the global effort against terrorist financing. The interplay between the two instruments underscores the importance of adhering to established treaty law norms to foster trust and cooperation among state parties.

Implications for Global Efforts Against Terrorist Financing

The ICSFT represents a critical tool in the international community’s arsenal against terrorism, but its effectiveness hinges on consistent and comprehensive implementation by state parties. The Convention’s emphasis on criminalization, asset freezing, and international cooperation requires states to align their domestic frameworks with international standards, a process influenced by their monist or dualist approach to treaties. For “this country,” operating under a dualist system, the challenge lies in ensuring timely and effective incorporation through legislative action, a process fraught with political and practical hurdles.

The relationship between the ICSFT and the VCLT further highlights the importance of standardized treaty-making practices. While the ICSFT is not a “party” to the VCLT, it operates within the framework of treaty law principles codified by the VCLT, providing a model for other countries to follow. States seeking to enter into treaties like the ICSFT can draw on the VCLT’s guidance to ensure their commitments are legally robust and aligned with international norms. This is particularly relevant for fostering international cooperation, as outlined in Articles 10–17 of the ICSFT, which depend on mutual trust and shared legal understandings.

Looking forward, the fight against terrorist financing will require ongoing adaptation to emerging threats, such as the use of digital currencies and online crowdfunding platforms by terrorist groups. The ICSFT provides a foundational framework for addressing these challenges, but its success depends on states’ willingness to update domestic laws and collaborate across borders. International organizations, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), play a vital role in supporting implementation through technical assistance and monitoring compliance. States like “this country” must leverage these resources to strengthen their capacity to suppress terrorist financing effectively.

Conclusion

The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism stands as a landmark instrument in the global effort to combat terrorism by targeting its financial underpinnings. Through its comprehensive provisions, particularly Articles 2, 4, 8, and 10–17, the ICSFT establishes binding obligations for state parties to criminalize terrorist financing, freeze associated funds, and cooperate internationally. For a hypothetical dualist state like “this country,” entering into the ICSFT under Article 24 requires not only ratification but also the enactment of domestic legislation to translate treaty obligations into enforceable national law—a process that demands political commitment and institutional coordination.

The relationship between the ICSFT and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) underscores the importance of adhering to established principles of treaty law, even though the ICSFT itself is not a party to the VCLT. These principles, many of which reflect customary international law, provide a reliable framework for states to enter into and implement treaties like the ICSFT, ensuring clarity and consistency in international relations. Other countries can draw on this framework to navigate their own treaty-making processes, fostering a cohesive global response to terrorist financing.

Ultimately, the fight against terrorist funding is a shared responsibility that transcends national boundaries. The ICSFT offers a critical mechanism for states to fulfill this responsibility, but its success depends on the collective will to prioritize implementation over competing domestic interests. By unpacking the legal intricacies of the ICSFT and its broader implications, this analysis seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of how international law can be harnessed to secure a safer world.

References

• International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 54/109 (9 December 1999). Available at: https://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm.
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2018). Counter-Terrorism Module 4: Key Issues: Treaty-based Crimes of Terrorism. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-4/key-issues/treaty-based-crimes-of-terrorism.html.
• Hoffman, P., & Thorburn Stern, R. (2020). The Legal Context for Implementation of International Law. Available at: https://www.childrensrightsreform.org/what/the-legal-context-for-implementation-of-international-law/dualism-v-monism.