Deterrent Effects of
Legal Sanctions on
Eco-Terrorist Attacks
Dr. Sue-Ming Yang
National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan
&
Yi-Yuan Su
National Chung Hsin University, Taiwan
Hokkaido University, Japan
Background Information
• Since the late 90s, eco-terrorist incidents have increased
dramatically
• Eco-terrorism has resulted in huge monetary losses
• For example, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) has caused an
estimated $100 million in damage (from 1995-2005).
• As such, the FBI considers it to be the number one
domestic terrorist threat in the U.S.
• To respond to the threats, many countermeasures have
been proposed
• Legal sanctions
• Law enforcement operations
The Goals of this Study
• Understand the patterns and characteristics of
eco-terrorism in the United States, Canada, and
Japan
• Identify key legislations that have been designed
to prevent eco-terrorist cases across the three
countries
• Examine the deterrent effects of each legal
sanction and estimate the change in risk of new
attacks after the enactment of new sanctions
Eco-terrorism Trends (1970-2010)
Target Types
Target Type
Business
Government (general)
Educational institution
Maritime
Private citizens and property
Utilities
Other
Total
Animal Rights
(n=645)
455
70.54%
25
3.88%
90
13.95%
1
0.16%
56
8.68%
0
0.00%
26
4.03%
645
100.00%
Environmental (n=442)
315
71.27%
32
7.24%
20
4.52%
0
0.00%
42
9.50%
14
3.17%
21
4.75%
442
100.00%
Research Questions
• What are the patterns of eco-terrorist attacks
across the three countries?
• What type of legal sanctions have been used to
attempt to prevent eco-terrorist attacks?
• Do legal sanctions deter eco-terrorist attacks?
• What type of legislation works to prevent future
attacks?
Data and Methods
• We included 1,127 terrorist/criminal incidents committed
by the 74 eco-groups across the three countries from
1970 to 2012
• Global Terrorism Database (GTD)
• Eco-incident Database (EID)
• A thorough search of legal cases was done to identify
eligible legal sanctions
• Key legislations in each country were selected for quantitative
analysis
• Interrupted Time Series analysis and Series Hazard
Modeling were used to examine the deterrent effects of
the selected legal sanctions
Eco-Terrorism in the U.S.
Key Countermeasures in the U.S.
• Legislation
• The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADA 1988)
• United States v. John P. Blount
• The Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (AEPA)
• The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA)
• The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
• FBI’s “Operation Backfire” (1998-2008)
• Targeting the “Family” (the organized group of the ELF and the ALF)
Eco-Terrorism in Canada and
Japan
Countermeasures in Canada and
in Japan
• Canada
•
•
•
•
The Canada Criminal Code of 1985
The Health of Animal Act of 1990, sec. 64, par. (1)
The Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994
The USA and Barbarash (2002)
• Japan
• Specific Measure Act on Countermeasure of Terrorism of 2001
Examining the Deterrent Effects of
Corresponding Legislation
180
Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act
140
United States
v. P Blount
120
Animal Enterprise
Protection Act
100
80
60
The USA
PATRIOT Act
Anti-Drug
Abuse Act
40
20
All attacks
Animal Rights
Environment
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
0
1970
Number of attacks
160
Effects of Legislation in the U.S.
Interventio
ns
ADA
AEPA
AETA
1 year pre-post
Estimate
2 years pre-post
Estimate
3 years pre-post
Estimate
Animal
rights
Envi.
Animal
rights
Envi.
Animal
rights
Envi.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-10.39
-15.95
-18.82 *
-20.490
-27.258** -25.033*
USA PATRIOT
-26.35*
Act
-76.38*** -29.23** -79.059*** -32.115** -81.937**
Results of Series Hazard Model on U.S.
Attacks
Interventions
Animal rights
attacks
Environmentalist
attacks
ADA
n.s.
.713***
AEPA
-.653*
-.446
AETA
1.192***
-.856**
AETA*M.Count
-.004***
n.s.
USA PATRIOT Act
-.086
-.259
Success_Dens
.002***
.001
Monthly count
.005***
.004***
The effects of Operation Backfire
Interventions
Operation
Backfire
Estimate(p value)
188.389***(.000)
Effects of Legislation Along the U.S.—
Canada Border
Intervention
1 year pre-post
Estimate
Animal
rights
Envi.
2 years pre-post
Estimate
Animal
rights
Envi.
3 years pre-post
Estimate
Animal
rights
Envi.
Canada
Criminal Code
1985
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Health of
Animals Act,
Subsection
64(1).1990
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Migratory
Birds
Convention
Act,1994
10.668**
(.006)
-2.676
(.616)
9.717*
(.012)
-3.335
(.535)
8.766*
(.024)
-3.994
(.467)
Conclusion
• Eco-terrorism is unique in many regards
• Legislation with more comprehensive scope of
protection on subject lead to successful deterrent
effects on eco-terrorism
• Both AETA and the USA PATRIOT reduce the number of
subsequent eco-attacks and the AETA further reduces the
risk of new attacks
• However, courts are more likely to use general criminal
codes than special laws to handle eco-terrorism
Suggestions for the Future
• Eco-terrorism is culture and society specific. No
blanket prevention policy could cover issues
across different countries
• Regulations focusing on protections of animals
used for experimentation are needed in the
future
• Importance to study spatial displacement of ecoterrorist activities after interventions like the
Operation Backfire
Deterrent Effects of
Legal Sanctions on
Eco-Terrorist Attacks
Dr. Sue-Ming Yang
National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan
&
Yi-Yuan Su
National Chung Hsin University, Taiwan
Hokkaido University, Japan