title: Confiscation of Terrorist Funds: Can the EU Be a Useful Model for ASEAN?

authors: Tofangsaz, Hamed

subjects: terrorism

abstract: The counter-terrorist financing regime has been developed and diffused rapidly since the 9/11 attacks. The two central components of the regime are criminalization of acts of financing and confiscation of terrorist funds. These measures, which duplicate US laws on terrorist financing, have been designed to impose liability on, and confiscate assets and property of, those who finance or associate with terrorism regardless of whether there is a link between their act of financing or associating and a terrorist act. In the absence of such connection between the offense of terrorist financing and its subsequent crime of terrorism, a question arises: What is the legal basis for imposing liability on suspected financers and confiscating their assets and
property? This ambiguity has never been properly addressed by the creators of the regime or by those who promote the regime. This paper explores whether and how this ambiguity has been addressed at the regional level among the Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) where the agenda of countering terrorism has been largely shaped by external actors, mainly the Western states and international organizations established and controlled by them. Considering the fact that counter-terrorism has entered the agenda in the political dialogue between the EU and ASEAN, it is worth examining whether EU laws and policies on terrorist financing offer themselves as a model for ASEAN to emulate. The paper concludes that the EU, a value-based community, has failed to deal with the issue of terrorist financing effectively. This has resulted in draconian and unjustified overreach of the forfeiture laws and policies which, in many ways, are inconsistent with the rule of law, human rights, democratic values and good governance.

text: Confiscation of Terrorist Funds: Can the EU Be a Useful Model for ASEAN? The counter-terrorist financing regime has been developed and diffused rapidly since the 9/11 attacks. The two central components of the regime are criminalization of acts of financing and confiscation of terrorist funds. These measures, which duplicate US laws on terrorist financing, have been designed to impose liability on, and confiscate assets and property of, those who finance or associate with terrorism regardless of whether there is a link between their act of financing or associating and a terrorist act. In the absence of such connection between the offense of terrorist financing and its subsequent crime of terrorism, a question arises: What is the legal basis for imposing liability on suspected financers and confiscating their assets and
property? This ambiguity has never been properly addressed by the creators of the regime or by those who promote the regime. This paper explores whether and how this ambiguity has been addressed at the regional level among the Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) where the agenda of countering terrorism has been largely shaped by external actors, mainly the Western states and international organizations established and controlled by them. Considering the fact that counter-terrorism has entered the agenda in the political dialogue between the EU and ASEAN, it is worth examining whether EU laws and policies on terrorist financing offer themselves as a model for ASEAN to emulate. The paper concludes that the EU, a value-based community, has failed to deal with the issue of terrorist financing effectively. This has resulted in draconian and unjustified overreach of the forfeiture laws and policies which, in many ways, are inconsistent with the rule of law, human rights, democratic values and good governance.

year: 2017

title: Predicting behavioral intentions: an assessment of Fishbein’s model

authors: Flay, Brian Richard

abstract: An empirical assessment is reported of Fishbein’s model (Fishbein, 1967c; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) for predicting behavioral intentions (I) from attitudes toward the behavior (Aв) and the subjective (social) norms (SN) perceived to govern that behavior:

I = Aв (W₁) + SN (W₂)

where W₁ and W₂ are empirically determined weights (usually standardised multiple regression coefficients). 

The model was tested by measuring behavioral intentions, the components of the model, and other related variables, for two different issues. The first issue was the (future) learning of statistics by introductory psychology students, some of whom were already learning statistics and some of whom were not. Measures were taken on three different occasions, that is, under three different conditions for the learning group: i) immediately prior to the commencement of their statistics course; ii) at the end of the final statistics lecture but prior to examination; and iii) after the examination results were known. For the second issue, a representative sample of the general population who lived close to a proposed nuclear power station site indicated their support or opposition to the introduction of nuclear power into New Zealand and their intentions to engage in behavior in support of their views.

It was hypothesised that: i) the various components of attitude discussed by Fishbein -- attitudes toward the object, attitudes toward the behavior, subjective (social) norms, the motivation to comply with these norms, and personal normative beliefs -- should be conceptually and factorially independent from one another; ii) the weight assigned to the components of the model should be different for different groups of people and for different conditions of measurement; iii) other two-components (one attitudinal and one normative) models would sometimes give better prediction of behavioral intentions than Fishbein’s model; and iv) the model would not always be sufficient to explain behavioral intentions, that is, variables external to the model would sometimes have a significant influence on behavioral intentions over and above that made by the components of the model. Generally, these hypotheses were supported, with the results for hypotheses iii) and iv) indicating that Fishbein’s model was not adequate and needs to be further reconsidered and developed. 

It was also found that: a) personal normative beliefs, which had been dropped from the model by Fishbein and his associates, was often a critical variable for predicting behavioral intentions and was not “simply an alternative measure of behavioral intentions”; b) the motivation to comply was an alternative measure of subjective norms and did not improve the prediction of behavioral intentions; c) other variables which improved prediction of behavioral intentions beyond that achieved by Fishbein’s model were mostly ego-involvement, arousal, or self-relevance type variables, which suggests that the role of this type of variable in influencing behavioral intentions needs to be studied further; and d) the causal links within a model can be different for different groups of people or different conditions, and adding variables to a model may change the relationships between variables and so change the whole model. It was concluded that much more work needs to be done in the attitude-behavior domain in the search for a parsimonious, but nevertheless more complex, model for predicting behavioral intentions and ultimately overt behavior.

text: Predicting behavioral intentions: an assessment of Fishbein’s model An empirical assessment is reported of Fishbein’s model (Fishbein, 1967c; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) for predicting behavioral intentions (I) from attitudes toward the behavior (Aв) and the subjective (social) norms (SN) perceived to govern that behavior:

I = Aв (W₁) + SN (W₂)

where W₁ and W₂ are empirically determined weights (usually standardised multiple regression coefficients). 

The model was tested by measuring behavioral intentions, the components of the model, and other related variables, for two different issues. The first issue was the (future) learning of statistics by introductory psychology students, some of whom were already learning statistics and some of whom were not. Measures were taken on three different occasions, that is, under three different conditions for the learning group: i) immediately prior to the commencement of their statistics course; ii) at the end of the final statistics lecture but prior to examination; and iii) after the examination results were known. For the second issue, a representative sample of the general population who lived close to a proposed nuclear power station site indicated their support or opposition to the introduction of nuclear power into New Zealand and their intentions to engage in behavior in support of their views.

It was hypothesised that: i) the various components of attitude discussed by Fishbein -- attitudes toward the object, attitudes toward the behavior, subjective (social) norms, the motivation to comply with these norms, and personal normative beliefs -- should be conceptually and factorially independent from one another; ii) the weight assigned to the components of the model should be different for different groups of people and for different conditions of measurement; iii) other two-components (one attitudinal and one normative) models would sometimes give better prediction of behavioral intentions than Fishbein’s model; and iv) the model would not always be sufficient to explain behavioral intentions, that is, variables external to the model would sometimes have a significant influence on behavioral intentions over and above that made by the components of the model. Generally, these hypotheses were supported, with the results for hypotheses iii) and iv) indicating that Fishbein’s model was not adequate and needs to be further reconsidered and developed. 

It was also found that: a) personal normative beliefs, which had been dropped from the model by Fishbein and his associates, was often a critical variable for predicting behavioral intentions and was not “simply an alternative measure of behavioral intentions”; b) the motivation to comply was an alternative measure of subjective norms and did not improve the prediction of behavioral intentions; c) other variables which improved prediction of behavioral intentions beyond that achieved by Fishbein’s model were mostly ego-involvement, arousal, or self-relevance type variables, which suggests that the role of this type of variable in influencing behavioral intentions needs to be studied further; and d) the causal links within a model can be different for different groups of people or different conditions, and adding variables to a model may change the relationships between variables and so change the whole model. It was concluded that much more work needs to be done in the attitude-behavior domain in the search for a parsimonious, but nevertheless more complex, model for predicting behavioral intentions and ultimately overt behavior.

year: 1976

title: Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti Kapa Haka

authors: Maxwell, Te Kahautu

abstract: Te Matatini is the World Champion Competition. Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti; Pool performance on Day 1 of the Te Matatini National Kapa Haka Competition. Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti placed second in the pool and qualified for the Top 9 Finals on Sunday 24th February 2013. Overall in the Pool qualifiers ŌpōTiki Mai Tawhiti placed 5th out of 41.

text: Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti Kapa Haka Te Matatini is the World Champion Competition. Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti; Pool performance on Day 1 of the Te Matatini National Kapa Haka Competition. Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti placed second in the pool and qualified for the Top 9 Finals on Sunday 24th February 2013. Overall in the Pool qualifiers ŌpōTiki Mai Tawhiti placed 5th out of 41.

year: 2013-02-21