Particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, the threat of terrorism, however, defined, has been invoked as a common ‘justification’ in the pursuit of remodelling policies, laws, and institutions, both at the international and in the domestic politico-legal showground. The broader central theme that this book explores is the normative vibe under which the present-day counterterrorism discourse is construed and sculpted in the legislative and institutional structures of an authoritarian state where the political power and government institutions are functioning under a single-party-monopolised system. Presenting the Ethiopian legislative and institutional frameworks as a case study, the book critically reflects on the extent that the international legal and/or institutional counterterrorism response is sensitised in a manner lessening the risk of conflating authoritarian regime’s unbearable reactions to citizens’ legitimate demands and resistances against its repression vis-àvis that of its response to the common threat of international terrorism. In particular, the book ponders whether or not the range of the substantive and procedural aspects of the Ethiopian antiterrorism legislative and institutional frameworks are wrought to fit into the main objectives and standards that emanate from the pertinent international laws relating to terrorism and the international human rights law as well as the domestic constitutional law maxims.
The broader central theme that this book explores is the normative vibe under which the present-day counterterrorism discourse is construed and sculpted in the legislative and institutional structures of an authoritarian state where the ...
This book examines the impact of counter-terrorism measures on specific elements of international human rights that are at the greatest risk of abuse in light of contemporary counter-terrorism measures, including the right to life; the ...
This book is devoted to exploring a problem which has been recurrent at times of crisis and must be constantly deliberately as new threats emerge: the necessity of limiting State power to protect individuals, including non-citizens.
This book poses critical questions about the definition of terrorism, the role of human rights and the push by many governments for more secu
This book explores how three major liberal democratic states - the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany - have approached this challenge by analysing the human rights impacts of their anti-terrorism laws and practices.
By comprehensively looking at all aspects of counter-terrorism measures from a comparative perspective, this book identifies best practices and makes clear recommendations for the future.
Taking as a starting point the widely accepted view that states confronted with terrorism must find a proper equilibrium between their respective obligations of preserving fundamental rights and fighting terrorism effectively, this book ...
This book is devoted to exploring a problem which has been recurrent at times of crisis and must be constantly deliberately as new threats emerge: the necessity of limiting State power to protect individuals, including non-citizens.
This book is an analysis and critique of the concepts of ‘exception’ and ‘exceptionalism’ in the context of the politics of liberty and security in the so-called ‘War on Terror’.
Brind v. United Kingdom, 18 Eur. H.R. Rep. C.D. 76 (1994). See also Purcell v. Ireland, 70 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. SC Rep. 262 (1991). . Peter Oborne, The Use and Abuse of Terror, Centre for Policy Studies (2006), 163. 164. 165. 166. 167.