of California Press, Berkeley, 2007).
2. Micheline Calmy-Rey in Mark Pieth, Daniel Thelesklaf, and Radha Ivory, Countering Terrorist Financing: The Practitioner’s Point of View (Peter Lang, Bern, 2009), p. vii.
3. UN International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (New York, December 17, 1979).
4. UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague, December 16, 1970).
5. Although the term “terrorist” is used in the title of the convention on bombings, the term terrorist bombing is not used anywhere in the text. See UN International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (New York, December 15, 1997) (hereinafter the Terrorist Bombing Convention).
6. UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York, December 9, 1999) (hereinafter the Terrorist Financing Convention).
7. J. McCulloch, “Precrime: Imagining Future Crime and a New Space for Criminology” in M. Segrave (ed) Conference Proceedings: Australian & New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference 2009 (Criminology, School of Political & Social Inquiry, Monash University, Australia), p. 151.
8. George W. Bush, “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point” (June 1, 2002), <https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html>.
9. Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Ottawa Ministerial Declaration on Countering Terrorism: P-8 Ministerial Conference on Terrorism (Ottawa, Canada, December 12, 1995). See also U.S. Department of State, Ministerial Conference on Terrorism, Paris, France; July 30, 1996 (Paris, 1996). For more information about the role of the G8 in the fight against terrorism, see Andre Belelieu. “The G8 and Terrorism: What Role Can the G8 Play in the 21st Century?” (2002), <http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/governance/belelieu2002-gov8.pdf>.
10. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, Foreign Ministers’ Progress Report: Denver Summit of the Eight (Tokyo, 1997).
11. UNGA, Letter Dated 3 November 1998 from the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General (A/C.6/53/9, November 4, 1998).
12. The Terrorist Financing Convention, above n 6, Preamble.
13. Financial Action Task Force, FATF Guidance: Crimialising Terrorist Financing (Recommendation 5) (October 2016), para. 1.
14. See Article 2 of Terrorist Financing Convention. Financial Action Task Force, International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation (February 2012), p. 11.
15. Marja Lehto, Indirect Responsibility for Terrorist Acts: Redefinition of the Concept of Terrorism beyond Violent Acts (M. Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 2009), p. xxxiv.
16. Antony Duff, “Perversions and Subversions of Criminal Law” in Antony Duff and others (eds) The Boundaries of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 91.
17. Lutz-Christia Wolff, “Law and Flexibility—Rule of Law Limits of a Rhetorical Silver Bullet” 2011 11 Journal Jurisprudence 549, p. 559.
18. Ibid., p. 551.
19. P. S. Atiyah and Robert S. Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law: A Comparative Study of Legal Reasoning, Legal Theory, and Legal Institutions (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987), p. 74.
20. Wolff, above n 17, p. 556.
21. Ibid., p. 556.
22. Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, p. 112. See also Boos v. Barry (1988), 485 U.S. 312, p. 332.
23. Robert S. Summers, “How Law Is Formal and Why It Matters” 1997 82(5) Cornell Law Review 1165, p. 1218.
24. Wolff, above n 17, p. 557.
25. Lutz-Christia Wolff, “Flexible Choice-of-Law Rules: Panacea or Oxymoron?” 2014 10(3) Journal of Private International Law 431, p. 434.
26. See, for example, H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press, London, 1972). See also Adam Gearey, Robert Jago, and Wayne Morrison, The Politics of the Common Law: Perspectives, Rights, Processes, Institutions (Routledge-Cavendish, 2008).
27. Wolff, above n 17, p. 560.
28. Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1964), p. 63.
29. Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th rev. ed., Liberty Fund Inc., 1982), p. 202.
30. Fuller, above n 28, p. 39.
31. Summers, above n 23, p. 1216.
32. Ibid., p. 1217. A U.S. court, in United States v. Williams (2008), 553 U.S. 285, 304, para.1846, held that a law is vague and therefore void when it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.”
33. James R. Maxeiner, “Legal Certainty and Legal Methods: A European Alternative to American Legal Indeterminacy?” 2007 15(2) Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 541, p. 549. See also Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 242.
34. Robert S. Summers, The Jurisprudence of Law’s Form and Substance (Ashgate, Aldershot, 1999).
35. Summers, above n 23, p. 1217.
36. Ibid.
37. Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, para. 109. See also Musser v. Utah (1948), 333 U.S. 95, para. 9.
38. Summers, above n 23, p. 1217.
39. Kolender v. Lawson (1983), 461 U.S. 352.
40. See, for example, M. O. Chibundu, “Globalizing the Rule of Law: Some Thoughts at and on the Periphery” 1999 7(1) diana Journal of Global Legal Studies 79. Symeon C. Symeonides, “The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choice of Law: Reciprocal Lessons” 2008 82(5) Tulane Law Review 1741. Edoardo Vitta, “The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’” 1982 30(1) American Journal of Comparative Law 1.
41. Wolff, above n 17, p. 562
42. Wolff, above n 25, p. 439.
43. This question has been also examined by Armand Kersten from a “methodological” perspective. See Armand Kersten, “Financing of Terrorism—A Predicate Offence to Money Laundering?” in Mark Pieth (ed) Financing Terrorism (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 49–56.
44. Michael McConville and Wing Hong Chui, Research Methods for Law (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2007), p. 4.
45. Terry Hutchinson, “The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law” 2015 8(3) Erasmus Law Review 130, p. 131.
46. Article 32 requires “recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous
