SOME CONFLICTS OF THE ANTI-TERRORIST AND CRIMINAL LEGISLATION

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 the legislation of many countries (Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Australia, India, France, Great Britain, the USA) was supplemented by rules providing for the possibility of destroying an aircraft or a ship used for committing an act of terrorism. However, the adoption of these anti-terrorist rules in Russia was not consistent with the amendments of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and this has resulted in conflicts of law. The authors believe that the provisions of domestic anti-terrorist legislation do not fully meet the requirements of proportionality principle established by criminal law on the possibility of causing harm in a state of emergency, as well as by international law. According to the authors, it is disputable to give the leaders of the anti-terrorist operation the right to make the individual decision on the destruction of an aircraft. In their opinion, the legislative wording about the possibility of destroying a ship captured by terrorists in order to prevent an environmental catastrophe is extremely unsuccessful. It is not surprising that, in some countries (for example, Germany), the anti-terrorist standards providing for the destruction of a civilian aircraft captured by terrorists had been declared unconstitutional by constitutional bodies.