Research in Progress

Courts under Pressure: Authoritarianism and Terrorism Prosecution

Why do states change the institutions and procedures used to prosecute terrorism? This paper argues that shifts in terrorism prosecution reflect changes in domestic political control as much as changes in security threats. As regimes become more authoritarian, governments are more likely to move terrorism cases away from ordinary judicial processes, expand the role of specialized, military, or security courts, and adopt exceptional rules governing detention, evidence, trial, and appeal. These changes increase executive control over politically sensitive prosecutions while preserving a formal legal framework. The argument also explains variation among democracies, where institutional constraints and judicial independence may limit or reverse exceptional measures. The paper examines changes in terrorism prosecution across states from 2001 to 2026, building on a new global dataset of judicial institutions and procedures and extending it through recent developments. Comparative case studies from multiple regions trace how regime change, political contestation, and executive consolidation reshaped the prosecution of terrorism over time.