After a brutal war, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) lost its significant territorial areas. How to deal with the organization’s members returning back to their home countries, has been...Show moreAfter a brutal war, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) lost its significant territorial areas. How to deal with the organization’s members returning back to their home countries, has been subject to heated debate. By focusing specifically on the role of the organization’s female members this paper explores the differences in the judicial approaches to the returning ISIS-women, through a case study analysis of Norway and Sweden. By discussing the differences in the expansion of national terror legislation, its implementation in relation to the women of ISIS, and the possible contributing factors to the different approaches, this paper answers the following research question: how do Norway and Sweden differ in their judicial approach to the Norwegian and Swedish women of ISIS returning back home between 2012-2022? Moreover, what are the main contributing factors leading to the differences in the approaches? The paper argues that Norway is more punitive towards returning women than Sweden. This is due to Norway’s legislation on terrorism participation, which allows for prosecution without classifying which actions count as participation. Furthermore, the paper argues that this differs from Sweden’s legislation on participation, which requires evidence of grave terrorist crimes committed in order to prosecute. This, the paper demonstrates, results in Sweden lacking the legal framework to prosecute its female nationals returning from ISIS. Lastly, the paper explores possible factors contributing to the different judicial approaches and highlights the Swedish legislative council, the effect of recent terrorist attacks, and loud critics as the most significant. Through the use of the case study, this paper contributes to knowledge on the implications domestic judicial differences can have in combatting transnational threats like terrorism.Show less
