This edited collection provides a comprehensive, insightful, and detailed study of a vital area of public policy debate as it is currently occurring in countries across the world from India to South Africa and the United Kingdom to Australia. Bringing together academics and experts from a variety of jurisdictions, it reflects upon the impact on human rights of the application of more than a decade of the "War on Terror" as enunciated soon after 9/11. The volume identifies and critically examines the principal and enduring resonances of the concept of the "War on Terror". The examination covers not only the obvious impacts but also the more insidious and enduring changes within domestic laws. The rationale for this collection is therefore not just to plot how the "War on Terror" has operated within the folds of the cloak of liberal democracy, but how they render that cloak ragged, especially in the sight of those sections of society who pay the heaviest price in terms of their human rights. This book engages with the public policy strand of the last decade that has arguably most shaped perceptions of human rights and engendered debates about their worth and meaning. It will be of interest to researchers, academics, practitioners, and students in the fields of human rights law, criminal justice, criminology, politics, and international studies.
The book presents a timely assessment of both the human rights costs of the 'War on Terror' and the methods used to wage and relentlessly continue that War.
The acts of lawlessness committed on September 11, 2001 were followed by a 'war on terror'. This book sets out the essential features of the international legal framework against which the '9/11' attacks and the lawfulness of measures taken in response thereto fall to be assessed. It addresses, in an accessible manner, relevant law in relation to: 'terrorism', questions as to 'responsibility' for it, the criminal law framework, lawful constraints on the use of force, the humanitarian law that governs in armed conflict, and international human rights law. It indicates the existence of a legal framework capable of addressing events such as '9/11' and governing responses thereto. The author examines the compatibility of the 'war on terror' with this legal framework, and questions the implications for states responsible for violations, for third states and for the international rule of law.
This book analyses the human rights impacts of anti-terrorism laws and practices post September 11th. It evaluates whether there are objective grounds for singling out people based on their nationality, national origin, 'race', or religion and argues that discriminatory anti-terrorism measures will fundamentally reshape these legal regimes.
This book aims to improve understanding of the broad trends in the utilisation of political violence by examining the use of state terror in world politics. The ending of the Cold War and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe led many to assume that this presaged the demise of the one-party terror regime and acceptance of Western concepts of democracy, freedom and human rights throughout the international system. But of course this did not end state terror. The totalitarian one-party state still exists in North Korea and China, and there are numerous military regimes and other forms of dictatorship where the use of terror techniques for internal control is routine. The late Professor Paul Wilkinson conceived and began this project with the intention of analysing the major types of international response to state terror, as well as their outcomes and their wider implications for the future of international relations. In keeping with this original premise, the contributors explore the history of terrorism, as well as reflecting on the need for international cooperation based on the protection of civilians and a consistent approach to intervention in conflict situations. This book will be of much interest to students of terrorism studies, political violence, human rights, genocide, and IR in general.
From its inception, the "War on Terror" has been a heavily gendered endeavour. A careful examination of counter-terrorism campaigns outside the current "War on Terror," reveals that such national security efforts also have a complex, but often unexplored, relationship to gender. This edited volume brings together scholars from various disciplines to consider, from a human rights perspective, the many ways in which gender interacts with counter-terrorism and national security efforts by modern states. The book provides a systematic overview of the key intersections between gender and counter-terrorism considering what it means to take a gendered human rights approach to counter-terrorism measures, the patterns that emerge from such an approach, and the human rights tools that can be utilized in this endeavour. The book includes case studies of specific countries including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the USA, exploring the intersections of gender and counter-terrorism in the specific country context, drawing both country-specific and general conclusions. It goes on to examine the narratives and common assumptions at work in the counter-terrorism context and the gendered impacts of specific policies, analyzing through a gender lens the counter-terrorism efforts associated with the post-9/11 "War on Terror" as well as other campaigns against terrorism.
Jose Padilla short-shackled and wearing blackened goggles and earmuffs to block out all light and sound on his way to the dentist. Fifteen-year-old Omar Khadr crying out to an American soldier, "Kill me!" Hunger strikers at Guantánamo being restrained and force-fed through tubes up their nostrils. John Walker Lindh lying naked and blindfolded in a metal container, bound by his hands and feet, in the freezing Afghan winter night. This is the story of the Bush administration's response to the attacks of September 11, 2001—and of how we have been led down a path of executive abuses, human tragedies, abandonment of the Constitution, and the erosion of due process and liberty. In this vitally important book, Peter Jan Honigsberg chronicles the black hole of the American judicial system from 2001 to the present, providing an incisive analysis of exactly what we have lost over the past seven years and where we are now headed.
Marianne Wade and Almir Maljevi? Although the worries about terrorism paled in comparison to the economic crisis as a topic during the last US election, one can find plenty of grounds to assume that they remain issue number one in the minds of politicians in Europe. As the German houses of Parliament prepare to call in the mediation committee in the discussion of legislation which would provide the Federal Police – thus far mandated purely with the post-facto investigation of crime – with powers to act to prevent acts of terrorism, Spain’s struggle with ETA and the British Government licks its wounds after a resounding defeat of its latest anti-terrorist proposals by the House of Lords, one cannot but wonder whether post 9/11, the Europeans are not even more concerned with terrorism than their US counterparts. A look at media reports, legislative and judicial activities in either Britain or Germany clearly underlines that those two countries are deeply embroiled in anti-terrorist activity. Can it be that Europe is embroiled in the “War on Terror”; constantly providing for new arms in this conflict? Or is it a refusal to participate in the “War on Terror” that fuels a constant need for Parliaments to grapple with the subject; begrudgingly conceding one increasingly draconian measure after the other? The question as to where Europe stands in the “War on Terror” is a fascinating one, but one, which is difficult to answer.
The wars against terror have begun, but it will take some time before the nature and composition of these wars is widely understood. The objective of these wars is not the conquest of territory, or the silencing of any particular ideology, but rather to secure the necessary environment for states to operate according to principles of consent and make it impossible for our enemies to impose or induce states of terror. Terror and Consent argues that, like so many states and civilizations in the past that suffered defeat, we are fighting the last war, with weapons and concepts that were useful to us then but have now been superseded. Philip Bobbitt argues that we need to reforge links that previous societies have made between law and strategy; to realize how the evolution of modern states has now produced a globally networked terrorism that will change as fast as we can identify it; to combine humanitarian interests with strategies of intervention; and, above all, to rethink what 'victory' in such a war, if it is a war, might look like - no occupied capitals, no treaties, no victory parades, but the preservation, protection and defence of states of consent. This is one of the most challenging and wide-ranging books of any kind about our modern world.