|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
060478
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
According to President George W. Bush, we are living amidst ‘the first war of the twenty-first century’. How then should the United Kingdom react? It is suggested that at least two strands of legal policy and response should be considered. The first concerns the design of antiterrorism laws and policies. For the purposes of this paper, the remit will be confined to how antiterrorism laws have responded to the threat from biological attack. The second aspect concerns the laws and policies about terrorism risk management, part of the agenda of which takes us back to threats to health from biological attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
178921
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The rule of law remains a hallowed principle even in the unpromising environment of counterterrorism, but failures to live up to rule of law rhetoric must be highlighted. As a result, one might question whether counterterrorism can realistically be conducted wholly in accordance with the rule of law. So, is the rule of law rhetoric or reality? In practice, it remains exceptional for states to resort to express or wide derogations from rule of law standards because of counterterrorism, but notable exceptions in reality undermine the rhetoric of rule of law dominion. By dissecting the rule of law into its constituent components, it is possible to gain a clearer picture of strong and weak points in the rule of law, though no single doctrine, instrument or institution can be found to offer transformational reinforcement. In view of the permanence of counterterrorism, the model required is neither one of accommodation nor an unthinking acceptance of framing ideas such as “the war on terror.” Instead, the rule of law rhetoric demands constant refinement and renewal within the mechanisms of constitutionalism in order to support the reality of rule of law. These precepts will be considered in the context of counterterrorism experiences in the United Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
188380
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The U.K. policy of “Prevent” aims to stop people becoming involved in, or supporting, terrorism. In common with many CVE policies worldwide, Prevent has remained controversial in its conception, delivery, and impact. A formal review is now underway, so it is opportune to ask, “Whither Prevent?” This paper will examine briefly the justifications for Prevent, but the main thesis is that the juridification of Prevent is a beneficial trend in the U.K. Juridification is depicted as: the legislative production of ever more extensive and elaborate instruments; the expansion of judicial oversight; and the administrative (bureaucratic) application of soft law standards. Juridification is here invoked in order to enhance the legitimacy of the policy of Prevent through explicit improvements in its modes of operation and through offering modes of challenge where the principles of constitutionalism are contravened. If Prevent can be improved in these ways, then its application can be refined to address more effectively and efficiently the threat of terrorist attacks, especially given that the originators or observers of these threats are invited under the Prevent policy to cooperate by consent in the enterprise of counter terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
034828
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Manchester, University Press, 1986.
|
| Description |
xi, 272p.
|
| Standard Number |
0719017823
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 029153 | 363.320941/WAL 029153 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
159891
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Proscription orders in UK legislation against terrorist groups have proliferated since 9/11. Added to the dozen or so Northern Ireland terrorist groups, around 70 international groups and one domestic neo-Nazi group have joined the list. Since that time, only two organisations have been deproscribed, and the UK government has resisted the periodic revision of listings and changes to the procedures for challenge and removal. The paper will consider the effectiveness and fairness of UK law in regard to the persistence of proscription, having regard to policy, legal, and practical frameworks and implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|