87 
PRIPRAVLJENOST EVROPSKIH DRŽAV NA 
VRNITEV TUJIH BORCEV ISLAMSKE DRŽAVE
Denis Čaleta
Sara Perković
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 
FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN 
FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
V analizi smo želeli prikazati, ali so tuji borci resnično nevarni za evropsko varnost, 
saj vemo, da je morebitna grožnja vedno mogoča. Do zdaj je bilo zelo težko oceniti 
grožnjo vrnitve tujih borcev. V raziskavo smo vključili dve državi, v katerih so 
napade izvedli tuji borci, ki so se vrnili v državo. Vključeni državi sta bili Belgija in 
Francija. V raziskavi smo primerjali politiko posameznih držav s skupno zunanjo in 
varnostno politiko EU. Ugotavljali smo, kako se ti državi spoprijemata z vrnitvijo 
tujih borcev in kateri ukrepi so bili glede tega sprejeti. Poleg tega smo poskušali 
oceniti, ali sta bolj osredotočeni na pregon tujih borcev, ki se vračajo, ali je poudarek 
na programih deradikalizacije in reintegracije. 
Tuji borci, terorizem, Islamska država, EU, zakonodaja.  
This analysis will consider whether foreign fighters pose a real danger to European 
security, knowing that the potential threat is always possible. Up to now, assessing 
the threat of returning foreign fighters has been very difficult. In this article we have 
attempted to analyze the attacks that have been carried out by returning foreign fighters 
in Belgium and France. Our research compared the politics of individual countries 
with the common foreign and security policy of the EU. We have investigated how 
these countries are dealing with the return of foreign fighters and what measures 
have been taken in this regard. In addition, we have tried to evaluate whether they are 
more focused on the prosecution of returning foreign fighters or whether their focus 
is connected with deradicalization and reintegration programmes.
Foreign ighters, terrorism, Islamic state, EU, legislation.
Povzetek
Ključne 
besede
Abstract
Key words
DOI:10.33179/BSV.99.SVI.11.CMC.22.3.5
Sodobni	vojaški	izzivi,	september	2020	–	22/št.	3
Contemporary	Military	Challenges,	September	2020	–	22/No.	3
 88 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
In this section, the main focus will be on those foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) who 
were part of the war conflicts in Syria and Iraq and who were part of the organization 
called the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS). But who are these foreign fighters? 
David Malet describes foreign fighters as “non-citizens of conflict states who join 
insurgencies during the civil conflict. I build on this formulation and describe a 
foreign fighter as an agent who (1) has joined, and operates within the confines of, an 
insurgency, (2) lacks citizenship of the conflict state or kinship links to its warring 
factions, (3) lacks affiliation to an official military organization, and (4) is unpaid” 
(Hegghammer, 2013, p 57). Returning foreign fighters have been well recognized 
as a potential problem: “As regards the problem of departures, the biggest concern 
of intelligence and security services and the police were the process of return of 
EU citizens to their home countries. There are legitimate fears that the return of 
radicalized individuals with the knowledge of how to use weapons and with traumas 
from crisis areas could create a serious security risk related to terrorist threats” 
(Čaleta, 2016, p 18).   
The research of this paper will be based on several specific European countries, 
even though the issue of FTFs has been detected more widely, across all European 
countries. The many FTFs who have returned from the Islamic State have led to 
increasing questions about them posing a threat to Europe. The problem of returning 
FTFs is in the idea that they did not leave their radicalized ideas in the conflict 
zone, but are returning with a will or a plan to develop terrorist activities. They 
are returning brave, after seeing many violent situations, and with a broad military 
knowledge. Other than terrorist activities, a further danger of returning FTFs is that 
they could radicalize others and make them want to join terrorist organizations in 
the future. This analysis will look into whether FTFs pose a real danger to European 
security, knowing that the potential threat is always possible. 
Whether the threat is real or not is the question asked not only by scholars but also 
by governments of European countries and their citizens. But the threat posed by 
returning foreign fighters (RFFs) is not thought to be underestimated. Terrorist 
attacks carried out by RFFs in different European countries are the proof of that. We 
have attempted to research those attacks which have been carried out by or connected 
with RFFs, including in Belgium and France. Both countries are important members 
of the European Union, so in order to make a complete analysis it is also important to 
analyze the politics of the EU in terms of the questions of terrorism, counterterrorism 
and the return of foreign fighters. In addition, we have compared the politics of 
these two countries with the common foreign and security policy of the EU, in 
order to analyze the challenges that European policymakers have in dealing with the 
phenomenon of RFFs. We have investigated how these countries are dealing with 
the return of foreign fighters and what measures have been taken in this regard. In 
addition, we have tried to evaluate whether they are more focused on the prosecution 
of RFFs or whether their focus is on de-radicalization and reintegration programmes.
Introduction
 89 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
Our evaluation could serve as a good analytical example of the situation in Europe. 
Some of the “restrictive” approaches used by the countries we researched include 
“new law approaches which criminalized recruitment, travel, the provision of 
funds, the organization or facilitation of travel, the delivery and receipt of broadly 
defined training (including self-training via the internet) or various forms of 
facilitation, support, incitement, “justification” or “apology” for such offences. 
Increasingly restrictive administrative measures that have been used in the foreign 
fighters‘ context include stripping individuals of their citizenship, deporting them, 
imposing travel bans and blocking their entry into or transit through territories, or 
the removal of travel documents” (OSCE, 2014, p 19). Other possible approaches 
used by countries are presented below. The analysis included in this research could 
help to additionally regulate all the relevant aspects of this problem and make EU 
governments ready for possible future events, and could help propose better ways 
of dealing with the challenges that RFFs will bring in the future in the national and 
European security environments. In the context of our research, the main research 
question was: “Are the governments of European states ready for the return of 
foreign fighters, and what are their legal and other possibilities to help secure the 
safety of their citizens?”
This research question helped us to investigate this complex subject and find some 
additional answers. The phenomenon of RFFs is possibly the most important question 
concerning the security politics of the EU of the past few years. To illustrate how 
serious the situation of RFFs is, we can use some existing studies which show us 
that “there are now at least 5,600 citizens or residents from 33 countries who have 
returned home. Added to the unknown numbers from other countries, this represents 
a huge challenge for security and law enforcement entities” (Barrett, 2017, p 5). 
Additionally, “some 5000 men, women and children have travelled from Europe to 
Syria and Iraq since 2012. An estimated 1500 of these foreign fighters have returned 
so far” (Renard et al., 2018, p 5). 
From a methodological point of view, in our research process we used the historical 
method, the deductive method, the case study method, and statistics. The historical 
method took into account not only the basic facts, but also a chronology of events, 
as well as their development, causes, and consequences. The deductive method was 
used to provide focus analyses in the part of this research which looked at legislation; 
we used both analysis and synthesis. We also used the case study method, which 
helped us to investigate each individual country of interest in this paper to see what 
they are doing when dealing with RFFs. With the case study analysis, we were able 
to see whether countries were using a more restrictive approach or an approach for 
the re-integration of foreign fighters into society. In this part of the analysis, we 
used a comparative method, so we could best present the similarities and differences 
between countries. Statistics were used to analyse how many foreign fighters have 
returned to their countries and how many of them have been prosecuted, and also 
how many are involved in programmes of de-radicalization and re-integration, if 
 90 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
they even exist in their countries of origin. Using these methods together helped us 
to explain and answer our research question. 
 1 FOREIGN FIGHTERS AS A SECURITY THREAT 
While both governments and citizens of countries are scared by the return of foreign 
fighters, research shows that foreign fighters do not significantly deviate from their 
surrounding society, and that in general they are not prone to committing terrorist 
attacks when they return. “My data indicates that only one in nine foreign fighters 
return because of an attack in the West”  (Hegghammer, 2013, p 7). In addition to 
this, “it is important to realize that not all foreign fighters represent the same level of 
danger” (Bos, et al, 2018, p 12). At least initially, those who have travelled to Syria 
are less likely to see themselves as domestic terrorists than those IS sympathizers 
who have stayed at home. They generally appear to have a stronger desire to join 
something new, rather than to destroy something old. Analyses connected with 
returnees have so far shown that this problem is more manageable than initially 
anticipated (Barret, 2017, p 14). There will probably always be a percentage of RFFs 
who get involved in unlawful activities, including terrorist acts, but there are unlikely 
to be mass numbers of foreign fighters launching major attacks. For this reason it is 
important to implement a system to separate these individuals from the hundreds of 
thousands of returnees from Syria or other conflict areas (Renard and Coolsaet, 2018, 
p 17). This is something that the Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT) 
confirms in its annual report of 2018, where they say that jihadi attacks are primarily 
committed by “local” terrorists that have been radicalized in their own states without 
travelling to join terrorist organizations, and that they often do not have a direct 
link with Islamic State or any other jihadi organization. Of course, “recent attacks 
in Europe have been committed by lone individuals who have not been to a conflict 
zone – but who may have been inspired by terrorist propaganda and/or the extremist 
narrative, as well as by other successful attacks worldwide” (TE-SAT, 2018, p 27). 
The Radicalization Awareness Network (RAN, 2017) explains how, in general, 
foreign fighters are not likely to commit terrorist attacks when returning to their 
countries. However, they also mention that when we talk about returning fighters, 
we are talking about two generations of fighters. The first generation represents those 
who joined the conflict for humanitarian reasons, to fight the Assad regime. These 
people are less violent. When talking about the differences between returning foreign 
fighters, this is the category who do not have any intention of carrying out unlawful 
activities. The second generation of returners is more ideologically decisive, and it is 
possible for them to return with violent motives to harm EU citizens. Hegghammer 
reports that “tentative data indicate that militants usually do not leave intending to 
return for a domestic attack, but a small minority acquire that motivation along the 
way and become more effective operatives on their return” (Hegghammer, 2013, 
p 1). Referring to these analyses, we could suppose that foreign fighters do not 
represent a danger. 
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 91 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Another reason for this is that this category of individuals often do not pose a 
threat to the West because they have little or no desire to ever attack their home 
countries, no matter how much anti-Western sentiment they are exposed to in the 
conflict zone. They were motivated to join a conflict that took place abroad, and 
they do not associate that conflict with struggles in their homeland. There are also 
some very interesting factors connected to militant preachers, who at some level 
of transferring religious messages argue that fighting foreign “invaders” in places 
like Iraq is justified, but carrying out terrorist attacks at home is not. We should also 
understand an aspect related to the social status that comes with fighting abroad, 
which is far higher than that of those who commit terrorist attacks at home. It is one 
thing to be seen as a heroic soldier fighting an invading army, and quite another to 
be seen as a terrorist who bombs his own country. Finally, foreign fighters may not 
want to carry out attacks back in their home countries for the simple reason that 
such attacks could endanger their friends and families (Byman and Shapiro, 2014, 
p 21). However, even if most experts agree that foreign fighters do not represent a 
direct danger by themselves, and that in most cases they do not return to carry out 
terrorist attacks in their own countries, the national security environment should 
still be prepared to deal with them. There are many implacable challenges, such as a 
negative public viewpoint to their inclusion in the social environment, which could 
encourage a different conflict situation. 
This could have at least two main implications: the first is that the RFFs could very 
quickly become violent in such a tense situation, while the second is that they start 
to build a close network of communication only with others of the same mind. The 
fact is that brutal combat hardens the fighters, making them steady under pressure 
and giving them a deep sense of loyalty to their comrades-in-arms. They also gain 
direct, practical skills (Byman and Shapiro, 2014, p 8). We must bear in mind that 
these people have passed hard training, have been on the battlefield, have seen and 
experienced many traumatic things, and have learned how to use weapons. We can also 
find completely different approaches and perception of RFFs, such as: “EU Member 
States reported that returnees to Europe may have a certain amount of combat and 
operational experience; have gained an enhanced capability of committing acts of 
terrorism; and be particularly dehumanized and prone to violence upon their return. 
They also serve as role models and might be involved in recruiting and radicalizing 
others” (TES-AT, 2018, p 27). Most returnees will be unlikely to experience anything 
in their lives at home that matches the intensity of their experience as a member of 
IS. If they begin to again feel as rootless and lacking in purpose as they did before 
they left, then they are unlikely to settle back easily into a ‘normal’ life. 
We should also understand the constant IS activity with regard to increasing 
its external campaigns, both through action and propaganda. Returnees may be 
particularly vulnerable to contact from people who were part of the network that 
recruited them, or appeals for help from ex-comrades-in-arms. It seems probable 
that the influence and involvement of returnees will grow as their numbers 
increase (Barret, 2017, p 15). Even if they are subject to close psychological and 
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 92 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
police assessment, circumstances may lead them to again seek violent solutions to 
their problems, especially if they return to the same conditions that they left. Others 
may suffer from a delayed psychological reaction to their life with IS. Terrorism is as 
much emotional as ideological, and even those who returned disillusioned or revolted 
by what they saw, or simply mentally or physically exhausted, may over time look 
back on the caliphate more positively and blame outsiders for its failures (Barrett, 
2017, p 19). So, even if most of the foreign fighters do not represent any danger, we 
must pay close attention to them as they return.
	 1.1	 Terrorist	attacks	carried	out	by	returning	foreign	fighters
At the present time, most of the research into foreign fighters talks about them not 
being a danger to the wider society. However, opponents of allowing foreign fighters 
to return to European countries say that it only takes one person to bring death to a 
large number of people if they decide to carry out a terrorist crime after they return. 
Aside from this, it is also said that foreign fighters are dangerous because they could 
radicalize other people. Even just one person who returned to Europe with the desire 
of carrying out a terrorist attack is still enough to make us change our opinion on 
whether RFFs are dangerous. Unfortunately, even though most of the returnees 
have not been inclined to carry out a terrorist attack, the Islamic State has been an 
inspiration to many people thinking about terrorist attacks. Statistics state “that since 
declaring its caliphate in June 2014, the IS has conducted or inspired more than 
140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries other than Iraq and Syria, where its carnage has 
taken a much deadlier toll. These attacks have killed at least 2,043 people and injured 
thousands more” (Lister et al., 2018, e-source). Most of these attacks have been 
carried out by people who were inspired by IS, not those who were under their direct 
command, and nor are there any data stating that they participated in war conflict 
in IS territory. However, there are still some examples where terrorist attacks were 
committed by people who had participated in the conflict as members of IS and as 
foreign fighters:
 – “Three people were killed and another seriously injured in a shooting at the Jewish 
Museum in Brussels, Belgium. The suspect was identified as Mehdi Nemmouche, 
a 29-year-old Frenchman from Roubaix in the Pas-de-Calais region of northern 
France. Nemmouche, who had spent a year in Syria, is a radicalized Islamist, 
according to the chief prosecutor of Paris” (Lister et al., 2018, e-source);
 – On 13 November 2015, eight attackers attacked Paris. They killed and/or wounded 
more than 400 people. Six of the attackers had returned from Islamic State where 
they had participated as foreign fighters; 
 – A returnee from Islamic State carried out an attack on an Amsterdam-Paris train 
in August 2015; 
 – In 2016 “two explosions at Brussels airport and another at a subway station in 
the Maalbeek district of the Belgian capital left at least 32 people dead and scores 
injured. In a statement posted online by several prominent supporters and by the 
ISIS-affiliated Amaq news agency, ISIS claimed that its fighters had carried out 
the attacks” (Lister et al., 2018, e-source).
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 93 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
 1.2 Programmes of de-radicalization of foreign fighters
Some countries have adopted strong measures towards RFFs, while others use softer 
measures, or soft measures in addition to other methods of dealing with RFFs. These 
soft measures are mostly deradicalization programmes, or reintegration of foreign 
fighters into society. Programmes of deradicalization are based on the principle 
of helping RFFs not to return to their criminal activities. When returning to their 
countries foreign fighters are faced with lots of challenges; besides the possible legal 
punishment and criminal prosecution, these challenges include facing up to their 
families, friends, fellow citizens, and the wider community. However, even though 
they have a wide range of challenges, there are still potential ways to make the returning 
process easier. One of these ways is deradicalization, which is a necessary first step 
for foreign fighters to make a return to society. “De-radicalization is focused on 
radicalized individuals. It is based on the assumption that not everyone who becomes 
radicalized remains committed to their cause, and that every extremist movement 
has disillusioned followers who have doubts, or simply want out (Neumann, 2017, 
p 20). However, it is also true to say that deradicalization does not have a clear and 
unique definition, and that there is no consensus about what constitutes successful 
deradicalization.
Reintegration can be defined as ‘a safe transition to the community, by which 
the individual proceeds to live a law-abiding life following his or her release and 
acquires attitudes and behaviours that generally lead to a productive functioning 
in society”  (Heide and Geenen, 2017, p 8). Successful deradicalization must be 
carried out by teams of experts, and it must contain one of the following measures: 
“Positive measures can be taken to form an effective deradicalization strategy. Well-
articulated and inspiring counter-messaging, which effectively undermines extremist 
narratives, can prove powerful when prompting extremists to reflect on their position. 
Using image and audio-based material on social media sites is particularly effective 
when communicating positive messages. Moreover, grass-roots initiatives which 
open up a dialogue between experts and society allow people to feel engaged and 
respected, while also producing valuable insight and rich discussion. Developing 
personal resilience can enable society to deal with the difficulties and adversaries 
it encounters, leaving people less susceptible to extremism. Supporting people 
through times of transition, via outreach programmes in schools, universities and 
local communities, can contribute towards healthy behaviours and develop more 
supportive and cohesive communities” (Manning and La Bau, 2015, p 13). 
Apart from these measures, one of the most successful means of deradicalization is 
that of foreign fighters talking to people who have already undergone deradicalization 
before them. Communication with people who know exactly what the problems 
are has been shown to be one of the best ways. “Each testimony highlighted the 
importance of these personal stories when delivering counter-narratives” (Manning 
and La Bau, 2015, p 27). When we study terrorism, extremism and violent extremism, 
we often focus heavily on tactics and strategy. We can better understand the situation 
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 94 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
if we look at the cognitive and emotional behaviour which underlines a particular 
set of beliefs (Manning and La Bau, 2015, p 12). In the end, deradicalized RFFs can 
be the most helpful in creating programmes for other foreign fighters. “Returning 
foreign fighters can contribute to intelligence capacities and help in designing 
better deradicalization programmes” (Leduc, 2016, p 18). When considering the 
Islamic State, one of the most successful means of deradicalization is to demonstrate 
how the IS studies and their theoretical teachings are not in harmony with what 
they are doing. Equally, challenging their ideology can be of use. Depending on 
the individual success of each person can be tough for the programme in general; 
although a certain programme may succeed with one individual, it does not mean 
that it will be successful in other people’s stories. The success of deradicalization 
programmes depends on many factors. 
 2 THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS AND EU COUNTRIES 
 2.1 EU policy concerning foreign fighters 
The European Union came together on joint values such as human dignity, freedom, 
equality, and solidarity; democracy and the rule of law are two more. Any action that 
is not in harmony with these values is in direct dispute with EU law. Terrorist activity 
is one of the acts that violates the values on which the EU is based; this is why one 
of the most prominent threats to the EU is terrorism. In the EU it is very important 
to have a common position of every Member State towards certain questions, one 
of which is foreign and security policy. The importance of this question is related to 
the fact that terrorism knows no boundaries, and this is especially highlighted here 
in the EU, where one of the most important values is the free movement of goods 
and people. 
Ten years ago we might have said that “every member of the EU is solving the 
problem of terrorism in its own way, more or less successfully” (Prodan, 2009, p 
11): so, the “Italian government introduced extensive additional legal powers to help 
to fight terrorism in the mid-seventies” (Wilkinson, 2002, p 113), while the German 
authorities were doing something else, and the French had their own system against 
terrorism. However, Prodan (Ibid., p 15) stated that there is no complete and effective 
common security and defence policies. The EU considers that Member States are 
responsible for all the challenges around the fight against radicalism and recruitment, 
but the EU can help with a certain framework to coordinate national policies, share 
information, and be successful in fighting against terrorism. This is how the EU 
thinks that fighting together can be most successful, and is why it began to react with 
a common foreign policy so that it can protect European citizens. In 2001 the “EU 
adopted an Action Plan to Fight against Terrorism. Improvement in cooperation in the 
segment of arrests and extradition of terrorists has been accomplished by the Council 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, by which the EU adopted the European arrest 
warrant” (Ibid., p 13). This Act was supposed to represent the main document of the 
EU on fighting terrorism. 
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 95 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
A few years later, in 2004, the EU adopted a Declaration on Combating Terrorism, and 
soon afterwards an Action Plan for Fighting Terrorism. As Prodan mentions (2009, p 
13), the goals of this plan were “to disable terrorists from having access to financial 
and other economic resources; to increase the efficiency of the working bodies of the 
EU and Member States when searching for terrorists, their prosecution in court, and 
when preventing terrorist attacks; to deepen international consensus and strengthen 
international participation in fighting against terrorism; to secure the safety of 
international traffic and the effective surveillance system of the outer borders, to 
increase the effectiveness of preventing terrorist attacks.” In 2005 the Council 
adopted the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which has four pillars (Prevent, Protect, 
Pursue, Respond). 
As mentioned above, terrorism does not know borders, and this is certainly true 
in the case of the EU, because of the desire of the Union to have open borders. 
Apart from the aforementioned surveillance of external borders, an important aid 
in their maintenance has been the Schengen Information System (SIS). Since 2016 
this system has carried “terrorism-related activity” information. Besides this, the 
SIS has begun to use “Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and 
Security” technology, which utilizes photos of people’s faces. Following the last 
large migration wave, many people began to talk about open borders being “death” 
to European security, and because of this, some of the Schengen countries have 
instigated border controls. To preserve border safety, the EU has developed Frontex, 
the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Frontex is necessary for securing 
the borders of the EU, and was of great assistance during the migration crisis. The 
numbers of people crossing the borders and coming to Europe are changing every 
year. “Every attempt to quantify the number of migrants can give only a momentary 
and shaky figure that can be outdated after several days. According to the European 
Frontex agency, there are six main migrant routes: the Western African, Western 
Mediterranean, Central Mediterranean, Eastern Mediterranean, Western Balkan, and 
Eastern land routes” (Kešetović and Ninković, 2016, p 101). Frontex’s main function 
is to oversee the borders, and with Regulation No. 2016/1624, it will be able to use 
all the measures for the prevention and detection of terrorism that are required. 
The EU believes that it is vital that all information received is shared, not only with 
Europol, but with every relevant authority figure in all the Member States. The 
EU has approved this type of action by Article 47 in the aforementioned European 
Border Coast Guard (EBCG) regulation. As they must be involved in European 
protection from terrorism, Europol has founded the European Counter Terrorism 
Centre (ECTC). The European Council has control over the Centre, and its purpose 
is to become the main hub for the fight against terrorism. Apart from support in 
investigations and aid if a terrorist attack does occur, the ECTC has access to Europol 
bases that can be checked, if necessary, for the purpose of investigations.  Exchange 
of information can also occur through the information base of Europol, the Europol 
Information System (EIS), and the European Criminal Records Information System 
(ECRIS), which is used so that states can share information related to any event in 
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 96 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
any criminal activity, both on suspects and convicted criminals; in other words, any 
information that can keep the EU a safer place. This type of data comes to Europol 
through the Member States, and is later published in the EIS. Considering that this 
information is very confidential, the program SIENA (Secure Information Exchange 
Network Application) is used so as not to compromise it in any way. 
In discussing the exchange of information, FADO must also be mentioned; the False 
and Authentic Documents Online is a website managed by the Geospatial Service 
Centre (GSC), which has in its database more than 3000 examples of false identities, 
travel documents, visas, stamps and so on. Another useful component of the EU’s 
anti-terrorist work is the Terrorism Finance Tracking Program (TFTP), which helps 
Europol to detect the financing of terrorism. In 2015 the Council and the European 
Parliament adopted new rules to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, 
and in 2016 the European Commission released a proposal to amend those rules to 
strengthen the fight against the financing of terrorism. 
Finally, it does not matter that the EU offers some frameworks to deal with returning 
foreign fighters; the Member States are still the ones who must take full responsibility, 
and must prosecute or find successful ways to deal with foreign fighters.  
Next, we will present some individual state approaches to the issue of RFFs.
 2.2 Case study of Belgium 
Belgium has found itself in a situation that has resulted in some of the most brutal 
terrorist attacks within just a couple of years. This has made the Belgian government 
look to dealing with terrorism through different laws and other possibilities. In 2015 
it expanded its definition of terrorism; at the same time Belgian law has reduced 
the time necessary for a verdict, concordant with the 2014 UNSC Resolution and 
the 2015 EU Directive on terrorism. Besides this, travelling to join a terrorist 
organization, receiving and giving service to terrorist training, or financing a terrorist 
organization are from now on considered to be terrorist offences. 
Since 2016, Belgian law has allowed house searches and arrests after 9pm in the 
event of a terrorist offence or a planned attack. The Belgian Criminal Code has been 
expanded so it can now punish the recruitment of people to carry out terrorist acts 
(Article 140), and to travel to and from Belgium to carry out terrorist attacks.1 The 
modifications to this Article deleted the requirement that an action must pose a real 
risk to society to be considered an incitement to terrorism. With the removal of this 
1 “The Constitutional Court of Belgium issued Judgement 31/2018 on the action for the annulment of the Law 
of 3 August 2016 containing various provisions in the fight against terrorism (III), introduced by the NGO 
Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (Human Rights League) with the Council of Ministers as the defendant. Since 
the applicant raised objections exclusively against Articles 2 and 6 of the Law of 3 August 2016, the Court 
considered the appeal admissible only against these Articles, and not to the entire Law. Concerning Article 2 of 
the Law of 3 August 2016, the applicant’s complaint was based on the modification of the previous text of Article 
140 of the Criminal Code.”
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 97 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
requirement, the Article left a wide margin of interpretation, making it impossible 
to assess the true impact of the action, as it did not need to pose a real risk. This 
modification also added the possibility of an action of incitement “directly or 
indirectly” to commit a terrorist act, an expression considered too general by the 
applicant, who felt that this generated great uncertainty about what might or might 
not be considered an incitement to terrorism. The modification could also lead to 
the criminalization of less serious offences, without the minimum sentence being 
reduced.
For these reasons, the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme claimed that these modifications 
were a violation of the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality, in 
that people could be accused of committing a crime without anything to prove it, 
based on a potential risk determined without objective grounds. These modifications 
would deeply affect freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of 
movement, leaving citizens uncertain about what could be said or done, since an 
action would not need to pose a real risk to public safety nor directly incite people to 
commit a terrorist offence in order to be considered as such.
As for Article 6 of the Law of 3 August 2016, the “modification authorizes 
preventive detention in cases of absolute necessity for public security in the case 
of terrorist offences for which the maximum applicable penalty exceeds five years’ 
imprisonment, whereas for other offences for which the maximum penalty does 
not exceed 15 years’ imprisonment, preventive detention is only possible if there 
are serious reasons to fear that the accused person, if left at liberty, would commit 
new crimes or offences, evade justice, attempt to disappear evidence or collude with 
third parties. The applicant alleges that the classification as a terrorist offence is not 
an objective criterion to justify the difference made in relation to other offences” 
(Roson, 2018, e-source).
When Belgium had its first wave of foreign fighters leaving to join Syria and Iraq, 
in early 2012, the local authorities were, at first, relatively satisfied with that trend. 
“As early as 2012, Belgium was the first country in Europe to notice an alarming 
trend of outward travel to Iraq and Syria and to alert their European counterparts. 
At first, local authorities were relatively pleased to see young troublemakers and 
petty criminals leaving, since their departure led to a significant decrease in local 
crime rates. Some services also took this opportunity to improve their information 
gathering on extremist hubs and networks, instead of seeking to stem the flow” 
(Renard and Coolsaet, 2018, p 25).  
Belgian statistics on foreign fighters are quite devastating. “Belgium reportedly has 
the highest ratio of foreign fighters per capita in Europe. The federal counterterrorism 
fusion centre, the Coordination Unit for Threat Analysis (CUTA), currently lists 498 
people as foreign fighters, in addition to 113 “potential candidates” for jihad. Of 
these, 413 actually reached Syria and Iraq, while the remaining individuals were 
arrested on route, either in Belgium or Turkey, or never left. The vast majority of 
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 98 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
these foreign fighters, 80%, are young men with a typical age range between 20 and 
30. Three-quarters of them joined the Islamic State (ISIS)” (Renard, Coolsaet, 2018, 
p 21).
Belgium has one of the largest percentages of RFFs, according to the number of 
citizens in Europe, with one returnee to 100,000 citizens. As mentioned further by 
Renard and Coolsaet (2018, p 19), 125 Belgian foreign fighters had returned by 
November 2017, while 146 individuals are still thought to be active in combat zones 
in Syria and Iraq. The official figure is 288, but at least half of those are presumed to 
have been killed, according to intelligence sources. Among the returnees, nine are 
known to have died during the terrorist attacks in Paris (2015) and Brussels (2016), 
and one died in a car accident. There are thus 115 returnees alive in Belgium. When 
talking specifically about RFFs, the process of returns should look like this: “Once a 
returnee is identified in Belgium, whichever way he or she came back, they are now 
systematically arrested and presented to an investigating judge. With the support of 
the police and the intelligence services, this judge will make a risk assessment about 
that individual and decide whether pre-trial detention is necessary.” In January 2018, 
there were 100 foreign fighters in jail, including approximately 10 abroad. Although 
some returnees are still awaiting trial, we could still assume that two thirds of the 
returnees are not in jail (Renard, Coolsaet, 2018, p 29-30).
Work is being carried out not only on making prosecution easier, but in developing 
an informational program in which all the relevant information will be shared 
between departments on a regular basis. For some specific examples, in 2015 the 
Belgian courts convicted five foreign fighters and one person who had assisted them 
when travelling from Belgium. These men travelled to Somalia and Syria where they 
had a plan to join jihadi groups, including Al-Shabab and Jabhat al Nusra. The one 
who assisted in the group travel was Hamza B; he was sentenced as a leader in the 
activities of this group, and for supporting them financially and materially. The case 
of Harris C-K. is interesting in that, because of a lack of evidence, it could not be 
proven that he actually did join the terrorist group Al-Shabab. He was convicted to 
four years in prison and a 6,000 EUR fine. On the other hand, it was demonstrated 
that Abdelfattah A. had left for Syria by his bought plane tickets for Turkey and a 
text message that he had sent from Syria. His punishment was 4 years in prison and 
a 6,000 EUR fine. The third person, Younnes H., was convicted in the same way, 
through a bought ticket and travel to Turkey showing that he had travelled to Syria, 
and with the additional proof of photos of him in military uniform. He was sentenced 
to five years in prison and a fine of 12,000 EUR. In the case of Kamal A., other than 
proof of travel to Turkey, the main evidence was given by his ex-wife, who testified 
how he was radicalized in 2010 and showed the desire for his family to go with him. 
He was sentenced in absentia to five years in prison and an 18,000 EUR fine. The 
last case in this group is Sami L., who was sentenced in his absence to ten years in 
prison and a fine of 60,000 EUR. It is believed that he died in a suicide attack in Iraq. 
The proof that this man was actually in Syria was, among other things, the use of a 
Syrian mobile number to talk to his mother on Skype, and a USB stick with Salafi 
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 99 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Jihadi videos on it (Tribunal de Premiere Instance Francophone de Bruxelles, case 
FD.35.98.212/11, 2015).
While discussing programmes other than prison, “it should be noted that reintegration 
is traditionally a weak spot in the Belgian penitentiary system, as the relatively high 
rate of recidivism seems to indicate” (Renard and Coolsaet, 2018, p 35). This does 
not stop the government of Belgium trying to use these programmes. “Every returnee 
will leave jail one day – most will in fact be released by 2020, since returnees 
are typically sentenced to 5 years in jail” (Renard and Coolsaet, 2018, p 33). It 
is therefore very important to begin the use of different programmes and different 
ways of helping these people. The local authorities should be well aware that foreign 
fighters are coming into their territory. They should proceed with some activities to 
help them find an apartment, job or any other situation that will deter the returnee 
from re-offending. However, of course, knowing that foreign fighters are in your area 
can make you more aware of them and their activities. 
We should consider deradicalization as the only effective way forward with regard to 
solving the problems with RFFs. One of the positive examples is the Royal Atheneum 
in Antwerp, which is a secular state school with a large number of Muslim students. 
For years, it experienced rising tensions over issues such as wearing headscarves. 
At the beginning of the decade, extremist groups were beginning to recruit in the 
school’s neighbourhood. In addition to a security response, the school launched a 
four-year programme which focused on creating a “common base of shared human 
values and rights”, and involved “making practical agreements [between the students 
as well as between students and teachers] and setting clear limits in relation to what 
was acceptable. The programme included rigorous inter-cultural dialogue, projects 
on identity and citizenship, and systematic training for teachers in all subjects, as 
well as arts projects in which students were able to express delicate issues without 
having to articulate them verbally” (Neumann, 2017, p 58). One more example of 
preventing radicalization from spreading is a project called COPRA, which has been 
financed by the EU. This project’s goal is to raise the role of police officials on the 
front line in the early discovery of violent radicalization. The project was launched in 
Belgium in 2010. In the first phase, a pocket guide was made for police officers on the 
front line. This included guidelines on engagement in the community, information 
about violent groups and their symbols, possible indications, and combinations with 
other factors to conclude that this situation could cause concern.2
 2.3 Case study of France
France is another country that has recently been heavily affected by terrorist acts. The 
international and the domestic public still remember the attacks in Paris and Nice 
where many people died. Because of this, France is very sensitive to the potential 
threat of RFFs, although talking about terrorism in general, “French policies have 
2 Source: OSCE Countering terrorism and violent extremism and radicalization which lead to terrorsim, https://
www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/d/111438.pdf. 
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 100 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
suffered considerable switching between hard and soft lines. When Mitterrand`s 
government came to power in 1981, it followed softer and more reconcilable policies 
towards terrorists than all of its predecessors. It gave many terrorists an amnesty, 
but after this many returned to active terrorism. In 1982 Government had to return 
to using harder measures. In May 1986, Chirac`s government added further hard 
measures after one of a series of terrorist attacks. The maximum penalty included 
years in prison, and the law was changed to allow a reduction in sentencing for those 
terrorists who would reveal the names of others” (Wilkinson, 2002, p 115).
Going even further back into the past, France has been leaning on a state warning 
system called Plan Vigipirate since 1978.3 The system was designed as an answer 
to a wave of attacks by left-wing terrorist groups, and has had several updates since 
its creation. The plan connects all the national actors (the state, local government, 
public and private operators, and citizens). Since the last revision, made in 2006, it 
has been thought that France is under constant threat. Vigipirate has two main goals: 
to protect the citizens, infrastructure and institutions, and to increase awareness in 
the event of an attack. The plan covers the protection and security of borders; the 
security of all citizens, not only in France but anywhere where France has a presence, 
in the sense of citizens of France living in other countries, tourists and travellers 
from France, and state employees (diplomats and staff); French airports and aircraft 
in the territory of other states; and ships sailing under the French flag. Vigipirate 
includes a system of readiness that is within the competence of the Prime Minister, 
who, after consultation with the President, decides whether it is necessary to increase 
or decrease the level of preparedness. 
Changes to the level of preparedness are broadcast to the wider public through media 
outlets and other systems of communication between state organs and the private 
sector. The system has three main pillars:
1. Vigilance is linked to knowledge of the terrorist threat and to its recognition, in 
order to adjust the behaviour of each individual and the protection measures; 
2. Prevention is based on raising awareness of the terrorist threat in state agents, 
operators, and citizens, on their knowledge of the organization of the national 
plan, and on good preparation of means of protection and response; 
3. Protection is based on a wide range of measures that must be constantly 
adaptable to the situation in order to reduce vulnerabilities without inducing 
disproportionate constraints on the economic and social life of the nation.4
How serious a process this is considered in France is shown by the fact that “in 
France, 2,680 additional jobs related to counter-terrorism will be created over the 
next three years and €425 million earmarked for this purpose” (Europarl, 2015, p 6). 
Part of this system is an operation called Sentinele, begun after the attacks in 2015, 
3 https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/locale/piece-jointe/2017/08/vigipirate-anglais-v2017.pdf
4 https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/locale/piece-jointe/2017/08/vigipirate-anglais-v2017.pdf
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 101 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
whose goal is protecting French territory from possible terrorist attacks. France 
brought in a new antiterrorism law in 2017, which guarantees expanded possibilities 
for searches, even allowing the restriction of free movement and monitoring of 
the movements of extremists; can close religious institutions due to the spread of 
extremist ideas; expands security measures at public events; and expands searches 
of identities at the French borders. France is also part of the Financial Action Task 
Force initiative, which deals with preventing money laundering for the purpose of 
financing terrorism. 
In terms of statistics, we can say that the problem of foreign fighters is worsening. 
“Some 350 ‘Islamic terrorists’ currently sit in French prisons; another 5,800 are 
under police surveillance, and an additional 17,000 have been classified as a potential 
threat. Manuel Valls, France’s former prime minister, has declared the country’s fight 
against radicalization the ‘biggest challenge of our generation’” (Crowell, 2017, p 
65, e-source). Further, the figures show that around 1700 individuals left France to go 
and fight in Syria. French law enforcement officials estimate that about 690 French 
foreign fighters are still in Syria and that about 43% – 295 – of these are women, said 
the Paris prosecutor, François Molins, in an interview in November on FranceInfo 
(Rubin, 2018, e-source). France is not a country that will welcome RFFs and others 
who have left for Syria and Iraq back with open arms. “President Emmanuel Macron 
said that decisions on allowing women and children to return from Iraq and Syria 
would be made on a case-by-case basis. The government spokesman, Benjamin 
Griveaux, made a similarly inconclusive statement in an interview with BFM TV. 
France favours having its citizens criminally processed where they are caught, he 
said, but only “if there are judiciary institutions today that are able to grant a fair 
trial” (Rubin, 2018, e-source).
Further French laws have been added with which they have tried to deal with the 
situation in Syria, including Legislation No. 2016-731 from 2016, which criminalized 
the sale of cultural goods that come from areas under the control of terrorist groups, 
and Law No. 2012-1432, which is about punishing people that have been in 
training camps. The French government is very firm on the subject of RFFs and 
their punishment. This is shown by a report from 28 September 2017: “The mother 
of a French foreign terrorist fighter (FTF) was found guilty of terrorism financing 
and sentenced to a two-year jail term by a criminal court in Paris. She is accused of 
having sent money to her son Abbes Bounaga and having paid for plane tickets as 
he travelled to Algeria and to Malaysia from November 2015 to May 2016. Bounaga 
eventually reached Syria and joined the so-called Islamic State (IS) in June 2016 and 
is believed to have died there in August 2016. In addition to the mother, the brother 
and a friend of the French jihadist were prosecuted for terrorism financing, for a total 
amount of about 6,000 Euros (2,800 Euros from the mother, 500 Euros from the 
brother, and 2,900 Euros from the friend)” (Boutin, 2017, p 1). As Boutin (2017, p 
2) states, this situation is even harder for parents; if you were a parent who knew that 
your child had travelled to Syria, and they contacted you in need of financial help to 
buy food and cover medical expenses, what would you do? 
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 102 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
France is one of the countries that takes a hard approach to RFFs. Processes of 
deradicalization and re-integration are not supported, and more restrictive approaches 
are used. The French Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe, said that nobody has a magic 
formula for deradicalization, and this has been shown by the different ways in which 
the French government has tried to deal with foreign fighters. At the moment, as 
Phillippe said, France is trying to stop the extremism that is flourishing in prisons 
(Boring, N., 2018, e-source). 
They do provide some special measures, which include activities connected with 
taking care of the psychological health of the children of fighters, strict controls on 
private Islamic schools, education of teachers to help them detect signs of radicalism, 
and more investment in teachers so they can help students see the difference between 
reality and made up stories on the internet. 
In 2014 France added 24 further measures to the national plan against violent 
radicalism. This plan includes making trips to Syria more difficult, prevention and 
social reintegration strategies for extremism, and prevention of jihadi promotion. 
The law allows the confiscation of the passports of potential foreign fighters, and 
also forbids foreigners to enter France if they have been connected with terrorist 
activities. 
The national plan against Islamic radicalization was passed in 2018, and consists of 
many measures whose purpose is to recognize radicalism and prevent it. The main 
measures include:
 – Improving the detection and segregation of radicalized people in French prisons;
 – Providing improved psychological counselling for and monitoring of young 
French minors returning from Syria and Iraq;
 – Removing government agents (especially members of law enforcement and the 
military) who have been radicalized;
 – Improving the monitoring of religiously affiliated schools;
 – Working with mental health professionals to find better ways to detect and deal 
with radicalized individuals;
 – Working with social network providers to ensure the removal of illicit content 
within an hour of posting;
 – Developing educational tools to fight against conspiracy theories on the internet;
 – Creating a scientific committee to better understand the phenomenon of 
radicalization and find ways to more efficiently counter it (Boring, N., 2018, 
e-source).
Before this step, France had developed a project entitled the “Centre for Prevention, 
Integration and Citizenship”, which was modelled on a programme called Epide 
whose goal was the integration of young people into French society. Unfortunately it 
turned out that the programme was a total fiasco, as the students were given lessons 
in French history and religion, among other things. “‘Several errors were made,’ 
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 103 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Amelie Boukhobza, a clinical psychologist for Entr’Autres, an association that 
manages the state’s deradicalization cases, [said]. ‘The issue of volunteering was 
very problematic.’ But to Boukhobza, the “full-frontal” approach of “flag raising 
in the morning, courses in secularism, etc.,” was too aggressively nationalistic. 
‘They’ve built a program in total opposition to the particular mental universe of the 
individuals. I don’t think it’s the right solution’” (Crowell, 2017, p 25, e- source). 
One more programme that French Government began is RIVE (Research and 
Intervention in Extremist Violence), a new programme whose goal is to help with 
deradicalization, but where an individual programme is made for each person. The 
expectations for better results are higher. In 2016 France also established a “Centre 
for Reintegration” staffed with psychologists, educators, and medical practitioners, 
with classes in laicité [secularism], the arts, conspiracy theories and their background, 
and pre-professional training (Esman, 2016, e-source).
Foreign fighters, historically speaking, are not a new aspect of military action. 
However, in this conflict, because of the sheer numbers of them, they have brought 
a great deal of insecurity and open questions to the states from which they came. 
When they first began to join the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, their states did not see 
this situation as alarming, even though it was analyzed and discussed a great deal, 
especially in the mainstream media, who saw this “foreign fighters” situation as 
very interesting from the beginning of the strengthening Islamic State. However, the 
situation of not caring changed when the first foreign fighters began to return, now 
with war experience, military knowledge, and having taken part in violent action. 
All of this made governments react to this situation and begin to see it as a cause for 
concern. 
The solution, as we have shown, is not a specific fix that brings instant results, but 
consists of trial and error. The situation with RFFs is for the first time happening on 
such a broad scale that governments should search for new solutions and approaches. 
The countries included in the research part of this paper do not seem to have any 
form of clear and consistent policy towards foreign fighters. They are countries with 
a large number of citizens who left their homes to join the Islamic State, and so are 
particularly interesting for research. 
In the main problems that have been presented in this research, we should seek 
fundamental questions as to why there were so many foreign fighters in the first 
place, why countries allowed the recruitment of citizens, and why did they not care 
about the routes of radicalization. In accordance with this, there are a large number 
of theoretical experts in the areas of terrorism, counter terrorism, radicalization 
and deradicalization, extremism and violent extremism who have been successful 
in explaining what led to people becoming foreign fighters, and what mistakes 
were made by systems so that citizens actually wanted to fight for a foreign cause. 
Although experts have enough knowledge to try to assume what can help in these 
Discussion 
and 
conclusion
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 104 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
matters, their knowledge, for the most part, is theoretical. This means that they can 
only assume that some approaches could be successful.
There are some countries that had programmes for foreign terrorists in the 2000s, 
such as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. These are countries that can present a good 
framework of appropriate ways of behaving towards foreign fighters. Even though 
the conditions might not be the same, from them we can see what could be successful 
and what not to use.
For this paper we researched countries in the European Union – France and Belgium 
– in order to see what means they were using to deal with RFFs. The countries of 
Europe are doing their best to successfully deal with RFFs. But it is a fact, which 
has been shown in this paper, that countries have not developed common systematic 
approaches. Some are using soft approaches, while others are using harder methods; 
some mix the two. But not one of these countries is confident about these approaches 
and their success in dealing with the problem.
Research has shown that it would be irresponsible to let people who have come 
back from the Islamic State manage alone, without any support. This would not 
lead to the successful reintegration of foreign fighters, but only to a situation that 
creates problems for the future. For the process of deradicalization to be successful 
it needs to begin during the period of imprisonment, and to continue long enough 
for the community to be safe after they have left prison. The deradicalization and re-
integration of foreign fighters is vital not only for the fighters and their families, but 
also for the other citizens and national security itself. 
The Islamic State and the whole idea of jihad has given foreign fighters a meaning 
to their lives, playing on their emotions and talking about things that each individual 
could understand. IS found and offered reasons why life is important and gave value 
to the young people’s lives. At the same time, while IS was finding meaning for 
them, their governments and the system that was supposed to help them was not; 
they only offered statements like “This is not good”, “You are doing something bad”, 
without offering alternative solutions or any help. This turned out to be a key reason 
why so many foreign fighters left Europe and other countries for IS. However, it 
could also be a key moment for any successful deradicalization and re-integration. 
Governments must realize that the only way you can help foreign fighters is to give 
them an alternative to the life that organized terrorism offers – but they must offer 
that life before people are even approached by the terrorist organization. 
It is essential that information is shared between countries about foreign fighters, 
potentially dangerous returnees, ways of reintegrating RFFs, successful programmes, 
problems, and opportunities, and especially to have cooperation at all levels of 
authority, from the government, intelligence and security services, ministries 
and judges, to social workers and local authorities. They must all work together 
for success in dealing with foreign fighters, especially local secular and religious 
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković
 105 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
authorities, because they are the ones with the best information about the potential 
threats, and can be the first to notice individuals who are changing and becoming 
more radicalized. 
Support must also be given to the families of foreign fighters. They are crucial 
in helping someone who is being radicalized and in removing them from those 
surroundings. 
1. Barrett, R., 2017. Beyond the Caliphate: Foreign Fighters and the Threat of Returnees. 
The Soufan Center. http://thesoufancenter.org/res earch/beyond-caliphate/.
2. Boring, N., 2018. France: Government Announces National Plan to Prevent 
Radicalization. https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-government-
announces-national-plan-to-prevent-radicalization/.
3. Bos, et al., 2018. Capacity Building Challenges: Identifying Progress and the Remaining 
Gaps in Dealing with Foreign (Terrorist) Fighters. ICCT Hague. https://icct.nl/
publication/capacity-building-challenges-identifying-progress-and-remaining-gaps-in-
dealing-with-foreign-terrorist-fighters/.
4. Boutin, B., 2017. Has Countering the Financing of Terrorism Gone Wrong? Prosecuting 
the Parents of Foreign Terrorist Fighters. ICCT. https://icct.nl/publication/countering-the-
financing-of-terrorism-gone-wrong-prosecuting-the-parents-of-foreign-terrorist-fighters/.
5. Byman, D., Shapiro, J., 2014. Be Afraid. Be a Little Afraid: The Threat of Terrorism 
from Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/06/Be-Afraid-web.pdf.
6. Čaleta, D., 2016. Geopolitical Tendencies Resulting from the Unresolved Relationships 
in the Balkans and the Impact of the Migration Crisis on the Security Processes in the 
Region. In Čaleta, D., & Shemella, P. (Eds.) Comprehensive Approach to Counter-
Radicalism and Extremism – Future Challenges for Counter Terrorism Process. 
Ljubljana, 11–26.
7. Committee of Experts on Terrorism (Codexter), 2016. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.
int/1680641010.
8. Crowell, M, 2017. The Atlantic. What Went Wrong with France`s Deradicalization 
Program? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/france-jihad-
deradicalization-macron/540699/.
9. Directive (EU) On combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 
2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017L0541.
10. Esman, A., 2016. Europe Gambles on De-Radicalization Programs as Terror Threat 
Rises. The Algemeinter. https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/10/28/europe-gambles-on-de-
radicalization-programs-as-terror-threat-rises/.
11. European Parliament, 2015. Briefing. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-
Briefing-548980-Foreign-fighters-FINAL.pdf.
12. Hegghammer, T., 2010. The Rise of Muslim Foreign Fighters – Islam and the 
Globalization of Jihad. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/
ISEC_a_00023.
13. Hegghammer, T., 2013. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Variation in Western 
Jihadists` Choice between Domestic and Foreign Fighting. https://hegghammer.com/
publications/.
14. Heinke, D. H, Raudszus, J., 2018. German foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq. CTC 
Sentinel, 2015/1, (8) 1, 18–43.
Bibliography
READINESS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR THE RETURN OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
 106 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
15. Human Security Now, Commission on Human Security, 2016. http://www.gdrc.org/
sustdev/husec/z-whatis.html.
16. Implementation of the counter-terrorism agenda set by the European Council, 2016, 
Council of the European Union. Brussels. 
17. Judgment. Federal Prosecutor v Hamza, B., Harris, C. K., Abdelfatah, A., Younnes, H. A., 
Kamal, A. and Sami, L., 2015. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/3288.
18. Kešetović, Ž., Ninković, V., 2016. Migrants and Local Extremists in South-Eastern Europe, 
in Čaleta, D., & Shemella, P. (Eds.) Comprehensive Approach to Counter-Radicalism and 
Extremism – Future Challenges for Counter Terrorism Process. Ljubljana, 101–114.
19. Leduc, R., 2016. Are returning foreign fighters dangerous? Re-investigating 
Hegghammer`s assessment of the impact of veteran foreign fighters on the operational 
effectiveness of domestic terrorism in the West. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/330599121_Are_returning_foreign_fighters_dangerous_Re-investigating_
Hegghammer’s_assessment_of_the_impact_of_veteran_foreign_fighters_on_the_
operational_effectiveness_of_domestic_terrorism_in_the_West.
20. Lister, T., Sanchez, R., et al., 2018. ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have 
killed 2,043. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/world/mapping-isis-attacks-
around-the-world/index.html. 
21. Manning, R., La Bau, C., 2015. In and out of Extremism. Quilliam. https://
d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nmcve/pages/84/attachments/original/1514348329/in-
and-out-of-extremism.pdf?1514348329. 
22. Neumann, P., 2017. Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalisation that Leads to 
Terrorism: Ideas, Recommendations, and Good Practices from the OSCE Region. https://
www.osce.org/chairmanship/346841?download=true.
23. Organizacija za evropsku sigurnost i saradnju, 2014. Sprječavanje terorizma i suzbijanje 
nasilnog ekstremizma i radikalizacije koji vode ka terorizmu: Pristup kroz rad policije u 
zajednici. https://www.osce.org/bs/secretariat/119226?download=true.
24. Prodan, T., 2009. Protuteroristička politika Europske unije. Polemos. https://hrcak.srce.
hr/47703.
25. RAN, Centre of Excellence. Responses to returnees: foreign terrorist fighters and their 
families. July, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu./home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/ran_br_a4_
m10_en.pdf.
26. Regulation 2016/1624 on the European Border and Coast Guard (Frontex), 2016. https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1624&from=EN.
27. Renard, T., Coolsaet, R., 2018. Returnees: Who are they, why are they (not) coming 
back and how should we deal with them? Assessing Policies on Returning Foreign 
terrorist Fighters in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Egmont paper. http://www.
egmontinstitute.be/returnees-assessing-policies-on-returning-foreign-terrorist-fighters-in-
belgium-germany-and-the-netherlands/.
28. Roson, M., 2018. Belgium Constitutional Court decision on the concept of incitement 
of terrorism. https://edri.org/belgium-constitutional-court-decision-on-the-concept-of-
incitement-to-terrorism/.
29. Rubin, A. J., 2018. She left France to fight in Syria. Now she wants to return. But can she? 
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/europe/emilie-konig-
france-islamic-state.html.
30. TESAT, 2017. European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. Europol. www.
europol.europa.eu. 
31. TESAT, 2018. European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. Europol. www.
europol.europa.eu.
32. Van der Heide, L. & Greenen, J., 2017. Children of the Caliphate. Young IS Returnees and 
the Reintegration Challenge. ICCT Hague. https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/
ICCT-vanderHeide-Geenen-Children-of-the-Caliphate-2.pdf.
33. Wilkinson, P., 2002. Terorizam protiv demokracije. Zagreb: Golden marketing. 
Denis Čaleta, Sara Perković