What are the effects of UK anti-terrorism laws on human rights and are these justified in ensuring national security?
Within the last decade, research has contributed to understanding the effects of anti-terrorism laws. It is at the forefront of current legislation and is a topic of debate as in recent years the laws put in place to protect national security in the UK have changed drastically when compared to pre-9/11. This literature review will contribute to current research by looking at the effects UK Anti-terrorism laws have had on human rights and whether these laws can be justified through protecting the public from acts of terrorism. To come to a conclusion I will be outlining what forms of terrorism are covered by the laws implemented by the UK legal system and how these may over-lap human rights.
The definition of terrorism has proved to be controversial as there are over a hundred possible definitions of terrorism (Hewitt, 2008). However the present definition used in UK legal systems can be found in the Terrorism Act, 2000 which states terrorism is “The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public” through several means such as violence, threat and interference (Loughnane, 2012). What acts fall under the definition has been lengthened over the years.
The events of 9/11 led to a “war on terror” as former US President George Bush described it at the time, but questions have been raised as to whether the global war on terror is a productive response to terrorism (Mockaitis, 2008). Chomsky, (1991) suggests that there are two ways to approach the study of terrorism and that the propagandistic approach is usually used by governments because when societies feel at threat, gover...
... middle of paper ...
...w.cps.org.uk
OSCE. (2007). Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights. [ONLINE]. [Accessed: 15th Mar 2014]. Available at: http://www.osce.org
Peirce, G. (2010). The Terrorism Act 2000: an interview with Gareth Peirce. [ONLINE]. Available at: http://statecrime.org
Raab, D. (2010). Sacrificing our liberties won’t win the war against terror. Telegraph. 25th Oct. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Risks and Choices for Human Rights Organisations. Vernier: ATAR Roto Press.
Spencer, S. (2013). London mayor: “it is completely wrong to blame this killing on Islam”. [Accessed: 20th April 2014]. Available at: http://www.jihadwatch.org
Warbrick, C. (2004). The European Response to Terrorism in an Age of Human Rights. The European Journal of International Law. Vol. 15 no.5.
Wilkinson, P. (2006). Terrorism versus Democracy. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
The Irish Republican Army during the 1970’s were responsible for various bombings in England; that lead to the creation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1974. The Prevention of Terrorism Act made “membership of and support for the IRA an offense” (p.47). It also gave the British government the power to arrest and restrict citizens and detain them for forty-eight hours- five days by extension even with sufficient evidence. This lead to the arrest of Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson. Unlike the Norfolk four, these individuals were subjected to harsher treatments due to the nature of the crime and recent passing of the terrorist bill. For example, while the Norfolk four weren’t physically harmed, the Guildford
Zedner, L. 2005, "Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice", Journal of Law and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. pp. 507-533.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 led to a lot of pressure from the public to find those responsible and bring them to “justice”. In order to do so, President Bush declared a war on terrorism just a few days after the attacks, but little did he know that this very decision would also bring devastating consequences to many countries. Over time, people have been losing faith in the war and in its purpose. Consequently, countries whose economies have fallen under the Military Industrial Complex have manufactured a societal fear against Muslims and jihadists. As a result, they are now being stigmatized and portrayed as the enemies of democracy, and of the United States in particular. To make matter worse, it has driven western countries to implement many extreme security measures that undermine the democratic principles they are attempting to spread over the world. The war on terrorism has had many negative consequences on modern society, which include a legitimization crisis of democracy, mainly in the U.S, and the manufacturing of moral panics over security risks that have led to the criminalization and stigmatization of the Arab world.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
The Human Rights Act of 1998 was co-founded upon the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. Developed following the ending of the Second World War, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was constructed to further the idealistic principles and endeavours of equality among all human beings, as well as a devout declaration of preventing the reoccurrence of the holocaust and massacres which have occurred as a casus belli . ECHR comprises civil privileges and liberties fundamental to all human beings irrespective of race, gender, age, sexual orientation exclusive of discrimination. The UK government have promptly endorsed the ECHR, recognising the need of ...
Lawless, M. (2008, October 8). Terrorism: An International Crime. Retrieved from Canadaian Military Journal: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/05-lawless-eng.asp
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism as, “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”. Whereas the Belgium Red Cross says that terrorism is committed “for the purpose of intimidating the population, forcing a third party to act or destablishing or destroying the fundamental structures of a country or of an international organization”.
Kushner, H., 1998. Terrorism in America; A Structured approach to understanding the terrorist threat. United States: Charles Thomas Publishers.
Dershowitz, Allen. Why Terrorism works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Inc.: USA, 2002. Print.
In recent decades terrorism has fueled many global conflicts and played a pivotal role in domestic and international politics. Domestic policies to combat terrorism continue to be hotly debated worldwide as the lines between freedom and security continue to blur. With an almost propagandistic anti-terrorism message being advertised throughout much of the developed world, one must ask if any progress has been made and whether or not governments have gone too far in trying to “protect” their citizens. Examining the current landscape of terrorism; the differing definitions found in the global community; what is currently being done to combat terrorism and the sustainability of these policies, it is clear that contemporary practices must be rethought in order to remain a viable and effective means to counter terrorism while protecting basic human rights moving forward.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
Since the end of the Cold War, dramatic emerging shifts in the focus of international relations, from the world superpowers, have veered to that of terrorism and counterterrorism. Terrorism and in/direct threats to the order of international stability of sovereign states did not come to the forefront of significance and study until the 20th century with the events occurring on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon. Immediately following these traumas, there “began a reorientation in foreign policy towards weak and failing states” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 1). The world of academia has traditionally focused on international relations as a discipline, with a sub-categorization on foreign policy. Historically, terrorism was not study specific. Focus on foreign policy allows for further exploration of policy analysis, theory and prescripts; however, the study of terrorism has been dotted through these areas disallowing the formulation of a concise framework for analysis. Because of these factors, building theories that focus on the connections between the two subjects has been difficult; and yet, in our current global society, they are critical. “Terrorism has [in fact] become a mode of doing politics” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 2) and can no longer merely be a subset to other areas of research and analysis.
Counter-terrorism is a relatively new issue wish has just risen in the past fifty years. It has recently been brought to light the September the eleventh attacks on the pentagon and the world trade centres drew into sharp focus the need to understand and counter the threat of terrorism with extreme use of force to prevent innocent blood shed on British and American soil. Understanding the past lessons of counter-terrorism has never been more important, as the coalition of western super nations response to the th...
Since the 9/11 event, terrorism has been becoming more rampant and violent in nations of the world. Getting to the bottom and providing a solution has also been increasingly difficult and one of the main reasons is the lack of a confound definition. “Terrorism in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of term, is fundamentally and inherently political. It is also unavoidably about pow...