| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
062254
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jul-Aug 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines key provisions of Australia's antiterrorism legislation introduced in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks. Never before in history has Australia witnessed a comparable overhaul of national security legislation and the introduction of laws that significantly curtail civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. A question that thus needs to be addressed is whether or not Canberra's drastic legislative measures are justified by the severity of the terrorism threat to Australia. It is argued that the actual risk of a terrorism attack occurring on Australian soil is rather low. As a consequence, the Howard government's antiterrorism laws constitute a disproportionate response that has worrisome long-term implications for Australia's legal system and its society more generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
060476
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the United Kingdom's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) from an international human rights law perspective. It argues that both pieces of legislation raise serious concerns in relation to international legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both international treaties allow for ‘derogation’ from certain provisions in times of ‘public emergency’. While the United Kingdom has officially derogated from some of its treaty obligations, Australia has yet to submit a similar notification. This article argues, however, that the United Kingdom's derogation is unlawful. Likewise, current circumstances in Australia would not permit lawful derogation from the ICCPR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
096153
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the UN Security Council's 1267 counterterrorism sanctions regime. Initially adopted in 1999, this sanctions regime targets individuals and entities suspected of associating with Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban and it requires UN Member States to freeze their assets and implement travel bans. Central to the operation of the sanctions regime is a "Consolidated List," which is maintained by the so-called 1267 Committee, a sub-committee of the Security Council. This Committee possesses discretionary powers to list and de-list targeted individuals and entities that have been criticized as incompatible with internationally recognized due process guarantees. Reviewing recent developments, including a landmark decision by the European Court of Justice, the article addresses the need for additional safeguards and discusses reform options available to the Security Council. It examines the most recent reform efforts introduced by Security Council resolution 1904 (2009) and argues that a comprehensive review and reform of the 1267 sanctions is crucial if the regime is to provide an "essential tool" in the UN counterterrorism efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
113311
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article finds that the Australian government's perception of the threat of terrorism continues to be fundamentally flawed. Suggesting that it is imperative to clearly identify the sources and targets of the terrorist threat, the article concludes that terrorism does not pose an existential or even major objective threat to Western liberal democracies like Australia. At the same time, the political and psychological sensibilities surrounding terrorism, in combination with public demands for action, may require democratic governments to respond. Any response, however, needs to be carefully calibrated to meet the requirements of proportionality and (potential) effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|