Asian Journal of Criminal Justice and Forensic Studies

The aim of the article was to determine the peculiarities and level of adaptation of international counter-terrorism standards in the criminal legislation of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The study was conducted within a qualitative-comparative legal design, employing the special-legal method, comparative legal analysis, and the case study method. The research established that the examined countries implement international counter-terrorism standards through different criminal law models: functional (Indonesia), hybrid (the Philippines), and preventive (Malaysia). It was found that in all three legal systems, criminal liability extends not only to completed terrorist acts but also to financing, recruitment, training, preparation, and participation in terrorist organisations without the need to prove a specific act of violence. Significant differences were identified in sanctioning policies: Indonesia provides for the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment from 20 years for the most serious terrorist acts, whereas in the Philippines and Malaysia, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment with an emphasis on preventive measures. It was determined that international counter-terrorism standards form not a unified definition but a “minimum core” of terrorism, which includes a violent act or the threat of its use, a special purpose of intimidation or coercion, and heightened public danger. The comparative analysis showed that Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia formally implement this core; however, they utilise different legislative models: functional (Indonesia), hybrid with a link to underlying offences (the Philippines), and preventive with an emphasis on potential threat (Malaysia). It was revealed that the level of legal certainty is highest in the Philippine model and lowest in the Malaysian model, where the expansion of the definition through categories of national security creates tension with the principle of nullum crimen sine lege certa. The obtained results can be used by legislators and courts to adjust national anti-terrorism definitions and their application practices, with the aim of clearly delineating the boundaries of criminalisation, selecting adequate standards of proof, and preventing the excessive expansion of preventive powers

References