The problem of foreign fighters of the Islamic State invests European countries

The request of the American president Trump, aimed at European countries, to take into custody their citizens engaged as fighters in the ranks of the Islamic State, appears correct and just. The international community can not oblige the United States to create new prisons on the model of Guantanamo to keep the militiamen of the Islamic State in custody, which possess European citizenship: on the one hand there is a role that Washington no longer wants to cover, from the legal obligation to take custody and to judge citizens who have committed terrorist acts and violence seems to be corrected. However, the proposal by Trump, which, as an alternative, proposed the liberation of terrorists, was not welcomed favorably by European countries, which objected to contradictions of a normative nature and of political and social opportunities. The most interested European states are Germany, which has declared its willingness to prosecute a part of its fighting citizens, France, the United Kingdom and Belgium. In essence, the opposition to Trump's proposal concerns the refusal to consent to the return of terrorists for fear of the creation of new fundamentalist cells in the territory of origin. The question of the outcome of the trial, in fact, is not at all certain that it can end with a prison sentence because the crimes committed were committed outside the national territory and there may not be sufficient evidence to determine the sentence and therefore , make terrorists harmless from the social point of view. If Trump's request is legitimate, the grounds for refusal, based on legal aspects, of the European countries appear unexceptionable. Possible acquittals in technically difficult processes, would determine the liberation of militarily prepared and ideologically highly motivated people, able to create networks and nuclei of adherents to carry out terrorist acts in the country of origin, or in neighboring ones, in the name of fundamentalism. The question thus becomes very controversial and complex: if the US or even its allies in Syria can not or do not want to keep European citizens in detention, can the countries of origin refuse to return? The general case must be framed not only for the protection of the individual state or groups of states, in the European case, but must also include the danger of these individuals in the former war zones, where the period following the fighting is always conditioned by situations of instability and uncertainty. The most probable consequence, without the coercive control of the former combatants, is that they become terrorists and carry out attacks against those who attempt the government in the territories that were the theater of war. Seen from this point of view, the question once again appears to be the refusal of its responsibility on the part of the states of origin of the terrorists, who first did not properly control their own citizens and then refuse their repatriation for their social dangerousness. The absence of the states of origin is therefore evident, as is evident the refusal of a possible reparation to protect their territory and leave the terrorists to those who have already suffered their actions. If the concern for regulatory uncertainty is justified, it is necessary to develop alternative solutions to ensure the right punishment for those who have been responsible for atrocious crimes and, at the same time, make it harmless. A solution could be of a supranational nature, investing in the competence of the crimes committed, international bodies able to overcome the single state legislations and widely expected for crimes against humanity. It is a solution that provides for collaboration and agreement between state and supranational subjects, but which can become a tool to solve a situation that could have dangerous effects if it was not properly governed.