INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RULE OF LAW AND NATIONAL SECURITY: COUNTERTERRORISM JURISPRUDENCE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM’S COURTS SINCE 9/11
Keywords:
Rule of law, National SecurityAbstract
Lord Justice Gross in Guardian News and Media v AB and CD recognises the rule of law as ‘a priceless asset of our country… a foundation of our constitution.’ In the same case, he recognises national security as ‘a national interest of first importance’ (Guardian News and Media v AB and CD, 2014). Although judges like Lord Hope in Secretary of State forthe Home Department v AF (No 3) acknowledges that the foremost responsibility of the democratic government is to protect individual liberty (Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3), 2009), such freedoms are often limited by caveats in the form of countervailing measures to respond to the threats to the national security. This pattern has been the post 9/11 context of terrorism. The 9/11 attack was the ‘watershed moment’, as Professor Fussey points out, that profoundly shifted the nature of UK counterterrorism policies (Fussey, 2011). The consequence of the tragedy, not only in the United States but also in other countries, including the UK, has given certain exemptions to state actors to develop appropriate counterterrorism policies. These policies allow the government to carry out executive measures to retribute individuals whom the government considers as potential threats to national security. Those executive measures include arbitrary arrest, asset freezing, control orders, and Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs). The enactments of antiterrorism statues further have legitimised those executive measures.
Downloads
References
Statutes and statutory instruments
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act . (2001). UK.
European Convention on Human Rights. (1948).
Human Rights Act. (1998).
Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011 (SI 631/2011) and Protection of Freedoms. (n.d.).
Terrorism Act. (2000).
The Justice and Security Act. ( 2013).
The Prevention of Terrorism Act . (2005).
The Terrorism Act . (2006).
Cases
A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department , UKHL 56 (2004).
A and Others -v- The United Kingdom ECHR , (3455/05, Bailii,ECHR 113) (ECtHR 2008).
A v UK, EHRR 29. (House of Lords 2009).
A v United Kingdom, 959 (ECtHR 1998).
Brogan v UK , 11 EHRR 117. (1989)
CD v Secretary of State for the Home Department , EWHC 1273 (Admin) (2011).
Chahal v. The U.K , ECtHR 54 (1996).
DD v Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWHC 1681 (2015).
Guardian News and Media v AB and CD, EWCA Crim (The Supreme Court 2014).
Lawless v Ireland (No 1) (ECtHR 1961 ).
Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department , EWHC 255 (Admin) (2014).
Omychund v Barker , 26 ER 15, [8]. (1744).
R (Gillan (FC)) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis , UKHL 12. (House of Lord
2006).
R v A , EWCA Crim 1958 (2010).
R v Da Costa , EWCA Crim 482. (2009).
R v DPP ex parte Kebilene , 2 AC 326. (2000).
R v K , EWCA Crim 185. (2008).
R v Roddis , EWCA Crim 585. (2009).
R v Z (Proscription of Real IRA), UKHL 35 (House of Lord 2005).
R v Zafar , EWCA Crim 184. (2008).
Ramraj, V. V. (2012). Global anti-terrorism law and policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge;New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others, HL 31
(House of Lord 2002)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3), UKHL 28 (House of Lords 2009).
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, UKSC 24 (The Supreme Court 2010).
Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB, UKHL 46 (House of Lords 2007).
Secretary of State for the Home Department vJJ, KK, GG, HH, NN and LL , EWHC Admin
1623 (Civil Appelate 2006).
Sher v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police , EWHC (Admin) 1859 (2010).
State for the Home Department v Rehman, UKHL 47 (House of Lords 2001).
Reports
Constitution Committee. (2011). Nineteenth Report: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation
Measures Bill HL 198.
House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee. (2004-5). Seventh Report of the
Session: The operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the use
of Special Advocates
Joint Committee on Human Rights HC. (2014). Post-Legislative Scrutiny: Terrorism
Preventionand Investigation Measures Act 2011
Lauterpacht, E., Greenwood, C. J., & Oppenheimer, A. G. (2003). International Law Reports,
Volume 124. Cambridge University Press.
Books
Dillon, M., & Neal, A. (Eds.). (2015). Foucault on politics, security and war. Springer.
Galli, F., & Spencer, J. R. (2015). The Law on Terrorism: The UK, France and Italy
Compared. Bruylant.
McCulloch, J., & Wilson, D. (2015). Pre-crime: Pre-emption, precaution and the future (Vol.
28). Routledge.
Ramraj, V. V. (2012). Global anti-terrorism law and policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge;New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Journal Articles
Bates, E. (2006). A 'public emergency threatening the life of the nation'? The United
Kingdom's derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights of 18 December
2001 and the 'A' case. . British Year Book of International Law , 245-336.
Bohlander, M. (2010). Open justice or open season?: Should the media report the names of
suspects and defendants? . The Journal of Criminal Law , 321-338.
Bonner, D. (2008). Executive Measures, Terrorism and National Security: Have the Rules of
the Game Changed? . Ashgate .
Campbell, D. (2009). The Threat of Terror and the Plausibility of Positivism. Public Law .
Carlile, L. (2005). Proposals by Her Majesty’s Government for Changes to the Laws
againstTerrorism
Chilcot, J. (2008). Privy Council Review of Intercept as Evidence: Report to the Prime
Minister
Dyzenhaus, D. (2005). An unfortunate outburst of anglo-saxon parochialism. The Modern
Law Review , 673-676
Ewing, K., & Tham, J.-C. (2008). ‘The Continuing Futility of the Human Rights Act.
Thomson Reuters .
Feldman, D. (2006). Human Rights,Terrorism and Risk: The roles of Politicians and Judges.
Public Law
Fenwick, H. (2015). Redefining the role of TPIMs in combatting'Home-grown'terrorism
within the widening counter-terror framework. . European human rights law review , 41-56.
Frankfurter, F. (1947). Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes. Columbia .
Fussey, P. (2011). Understanding terrorism through criminology. In A. Stedmon, G. Lawson,
& R. Saikayasit (Eds.), Counter-Terrorism and Hostile Intent: Human Factors Theory and
Application.
Gearty, C. (2005). 11 September 2001, Counter-terrorism, and the Human Rights Act. .
Journal of Law and Society , 18-33.
Gies, L. (2011). A Villains’ Charter? The Press and the Human Rights Act. Crime, Media,
Culture: An International Journal .
Hennessey, T. (1997). A History of Northern Ireland: 1920-1996 . Macmillan .
Hickman, T. R. (2005). Between human rights and the rule of law: Indefinite detention and
the derogation model of constitutionalism. . The Modern Law Review , 655-668.
Hodgson, J., & Tadros, V. (2009). How to Make a Terrorist Out of Nothing
Irving, H., & Townend, J. (2016). Censorship and national security: information control in
the Second World War and present day. . History & Policy.
Joint Committee on Human Rights HC. (2014). Post-Legislative Scrutiny: Terrorism
Preventionand Investigation Measures Act 2011.
Jones, A., & others. (2006). Blackstone’s Guide to the Terrorism Act 2006 . OUP.
Kavanagh, A. (2011). Constitutionalism, counterterrorism, and the courts: Changes in the
British constitutional landscape. International Journal of Constitutional Law , 172-199.
Kavanagh, A. (2009). Judging the judges under the human rights act: Deference,
disillusionment and the "war on terror". Public Law
Londras, F. d. (2011). Can Counter-Terrorist Internment Ever Be Legitimate
Mukherjee, A. (2005). Detention of foreign national terrorist suspects: Compatibility with
The European Convention on Human Rights: A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home
Department . The Journal of Criminal Law , 215-218
O’Cinneide, C. (2008). Strapped to the Mast: The Siren Song of Dreadful Necessity, the
United Kingdom Human Rights Act and the Terrorist Threat. In M. Gani, & P. Mathew,
Fresh Perspectives on the ‘War on Terror.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
Ownership and Licensing:
Authors of research papers submitted to any journal published by The Law Brigade Publishers retain the copyright of their work while granting the journal specific rights. Authors maintain ownership of the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Simultaneously, authors agree to license their research papers under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
License Permissions:
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, others are permitted to share and adapt the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the authors, and acknowledgment is made of the initial publication by The Law Brigade Publishers. This license encourages the broad dissemination and reuse of research papers while ensuring that the original work is properly credited.
Additional Distribution Arrangements:
Authors are free to enter into separate, non-exclusive contractual arrangements for distributing the published version of the work (e.g., posting it to institutional repositories or publishing it in books), provided that the original publication by The Law Brigade Publishers is acknowledged.
Online Posting:
Authors are encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both prior to submission and after publication. This practice can facilitate productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the work.
Responsibility and Liability:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted research papers do not infringe on the copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties. The Law Brigade Publishers disclaims any liability for any copyright infringement or violation of third-party rights within the submitted research papers.
