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 Animal Rights (n=645)

Environmental (n=442)

Business 45570.54%

31571.27%

Government (general) 253.88%

327.24%

Educational institution 9013.95%

204.52%

Maritime 10.16%

00.00%

Private citizens and property 

568.68%

429.50%

Utilities 00.00%

143.17%

Other 264.03%

214.75%

Total 645100.00%

442100.00%

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

18019

7019

7219

7419

7619

7819

8019

8219

8419

8619

8819

9019

9219

9419

9619

9820

0020

0220

0420

0620

0820

10

Num

ber o

f atta

cks

All attacks Animal Rights Environment

Animal Enterprise Protection Act

Anti-Drug Abuse Act

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

United Statesv. P Blount

The USA PATRIOT Act

Effects of Legislation in the U.S.

Interventions

1 year pre-post Estimate

2 years pre-post Estimate

3 years pre-post Estimate

Animal rights

Envi. Animal rights

Envi. Animal rights

Envi.

ADAn.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

AEPAn.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

AETA-10.39 -15.95 -18.82 * -20.490 -27.258** -25.033*

USA PATRIOT Act

-26.35* -76.38*** -29.23** -79.059*** -32.115** -81.937**

Results of Series Hazard Model on U.S. Attacks Interventions Animal rights

attacksEnvironmentalist 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 Estimate(p value)

Operation Backfire

188.389***(.000)

Effects of Legislation Along the U.S.—Canada Border

Intervention

1 year pre-post Estimate

2 years pre-post Estimate

3 years pre-post Estimate

Animal rights

Envi. Animal rights

Envi. 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 eco-terrorist 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