Samenvatting

In recent years, the threat of Islamic terrorism became visible in several European countries. The terrorist attacks that occurred in France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, etc. shocked the European society. Especially the phenomenon of home-grown terrorists, individuals who radicalised in European countries, developed into a growing concern for governments of Western countries. The new challenge governments faced was to counter radicalisation effectively in order to prevent future attacks from happening. However, the term of radicalisation is surrounded by ambiguity and a universal definition is non-existent. Furthermore, it is yet uncertain where exactly extreme beliefs turn into radical beliefs and at what point a government should intervene.

This research evaluated the magnitude of radicalisation in France and the Netherlands and analysed the counter radicalisation measures in the two countries respectively. The two countries were chosen due to the different magnitude of the issue they experience and due to the fact that both countries have a relatively large Muslim population. In recent years, France has encountered more domestic terrorist attacks than any other European country. Since 2015, more than 240 people in France have been killed by supporters of the terrorist organisation IS. Countering terrorism and radicalisation has been high on the French agenda since the 2012 Merah attacks. Especially radicalisation in prisons remains a pressing issue to be tackled by French authorities since several of the attackers of previous terrorist attacks have reportedly been radicalised or strengthened their radical beliefs during their prison experience. Since 2012, the French government has continuously set up new measures to combat radicalisation and terrorism. After the November 2015 attacks in Paris, the French government declared the state of emergency, which lasted two years and received notable criticism for violating the private lives of
French citizens. After analysing the French counterterrorism and counter radicalisation measures it was understood that the French government utilises an informal approach, meaning that the different agencies involved in combatting radicalisation do not work under a central authority. This approach has the benefit of linking intelligence and justice, however, it also leads to competition and issues in communication and cooperation. Furthermore, it was surprising that France did not implement any counter radicalisation measures until 2014. In addition, the French counter radicalisation policies are set up to dismantle the means of radicalisation, but not the causes of radicalisation.

The Netherlands, on the other hand, encountered apart from the 2004 van Gogh assassination no Islamic terrorist attacks in recent years. Nevertheless, the Dutch government developed measures to counter terrorism and radicalisation in recent years. Contrary to France, the Netherlands applies a formal approach to counter terrorism and radicalisation in which the NCTV is responsible for the coordination of tasks. This approach has the benefit of facilitating coordination and communication among the different agencies responsible for counter radicalisation. Furthermore, the Dutch government has implemented counter radicalisation measures since 2007. After analysing the Dutch counterterrorism and counter radicalisation measures it came into view that the Dutch counter measures had a restrictive and a preventive premise. The measures focused on destroying the means of radicalisation as well as the causes for radicalisation. In addition, the Dutch policy papers are much more open about the measures mentioned and why these measures are included. Also, weaknesses of past policies are explained as well as how these weaknesses will be eliminated with the new policies. Nevertheless, the
uncertainty regarding radicalisation and its development must be abolished in order for governments to be able to counter radicalisation more effectively.