Terrorism and Human Rights
Total wordcount: 7921
COUNTER-TERRORISM & HUMAN RIGHTS
The duty to comply with Human Rights while countering terrorism
Since the end of the Second World War, and the Cold War, terrorism has been one of the main issues of the international community. Not only has terrorism been perceived as a threat to the peace and the security, but also, an aggression of the fundamental rights and to the democracy.
Following the 9/11 attacks, which have shaken the civilized world to its core foundations, the fight against terrorism became even more significant. The Security Council, in 2001, has adopted the Resolution 13731 (which is indicative of the importance of this issue). This resolution constitutes a general framework of the international campaign against terrorism, by defining all the measures that can actually be done to fight against it and by declaring the necessity to fight against terrorism by all “legal” mean. Therefore, the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee has also been established2. De facto, with a general framework and an institutional framework, nothing could possibly prevent States in fighting terrorism under the aegis of the United Nations. However, if the Resolution claims to fight against terrorism, it does not define it, which is not surprising knowing that before the resolution, over 12 different conventions about terrorism, have not been able to give a definition. The international community has never solved that issue, and nobody succeed in getting everyone agreed on the legal definition of “terrorism”.
The Human Rights culture is also another important concern for the international community. Indeed, the relationship between terrorism and human rights became more important since 9/11. The importance of the debate between Human Rights and the fight against terrorism is a great concern for democratic states. Democracy means that Human Rights and the fundamental freedoms are respected, promoted and fulfilled by the government, which then allows people to live with dignity. It particularly provides protection and security. These rights, or “values” are expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights3 and further developed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.4 Terrorism acts deeply reconsiders the right to life, peace and security. Consequently, for that reason, terrorism has to be fought with firmness.
However, if international legislation is used as a framework in order to counter terrorism, one might wonder if States have a duty to comply with Human Rights while countering terrorism.
The answer is not that simple, there is indeed on the one hand the international law theory which states that States do have a duty to comply with Human Rights while countering terrorism, nonetheless, and on the other hand, the application of this international law by the States. Unfortunately, researches, studies and law cases, indicate a massive gap between the theory and the practice.
Chapter I: Counter-terrorism and Human Rights:
The legal international framework
Terrorism post-2001: an international issue
Following the 9/11 attacks, which have shaken the civilized world, the Security Council, has adopted the Resolution 1373.5 This resolution constitutes a general framework of the international campaign against terrorism, by defining all the measures that can actually be done to fight against it and by declaring the necessity to fight against terrorism by all “legal” means. Therefore, the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee has also been established.6 However, if the resolution claims to fight against terrorism, it does not define it. The international community has never solved that issue, and nobody succeed in getting everyone agreed on the legal definition of “terrorism”....
The issue of terrorism and humanrights has long been a concern of the United Nations. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001and subsequent surge in acts of terrorism worldwide, it has become even more urgent. While condemning terrorism unequivocally and recognizing theduty of States to protect those living within their jurisdictions from terrorism, the United Nations has placed a priority on the question of protecting humanrights in the context of counter-terrorism measures.
The defense of humanrights and upholding the rule of law whilecounteringterrorism is indeed at the heart of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Member States acknowledged that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of humanrights were not conflicting goals but complementary and mutually reinforcing aims. They pledged to take measures aimed at addressing violations of humanrights and to ensure that any measures taken to counter terrorismcomply with their humanrights...
Ryan M. Faught
Arkansas Tech University
Terrorism has been a major topic of research for many years. We’ve learned a lot about terrorism and terrorist groups, but there are still major questions to be answered. What exactly is a terrorist? What causes ordinary people to become terrorists? What attracts people to terrorism? How do terrorist groups in the Middle East recruit and radicalize people from all over the world? In this paper I will discuss these questions and more according to the knowledge I’ve gained from reading these five research papers.
Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause (De Zulueta, 2006). This or any definition of terrorism is still subjective depending on the “terrorist” and the situation. For instance, most Americans don’t consider the founding fathers as terrorists, but freedom fighters. In the same way, radical Muslims may look at al Qaeda as freedom fighters, although most of the world would view them as terrorists. The deciding factor that separates freedom fighters from terrorists appears to be the intentional murder of innocent people. Terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda are well known for such murders. Rather than merely fighting for freedom, they wish to create a...
...HumanRights | |
Submitted to: Ms. Padmaja | Subject: Contemporary issues |
HumanRights – Evolution and Significance (UDHR, CEDAW, CRC, DRD)
Sujith Sudhakaran ………………..27
Nishad Neelambaran ………………..28
Dhanya Balakrishnan ………………...64
Pooja Nair ………………..73
Abhi Varrier ………………113
S.K. Somaiya College of Arts, Science & Commerce
This is to certify that the below given assignment of
is complete and submitted as per schedule to
On the topic
Signature Signature Signature
(Principal) (Head of dept.) (Prof.In charge)
We owe a great many thanks to great many people who helped and supported us during the writing of this project.
Our deepest thanks to our Professor Padmaja, the guide of the project for guiding and correcting various documents of ours with attention and care.
We express our thanks to the Principal of S.K.Somaiya College, Mrs.Sangita Kohli, for extending her support.
We would also like to thank our Institution and faculty members without whom this project would have been distant reality. We also extend our heartfelt thanks to our family members and well-wishers.
Content | Page Number |
Introduction | 4 |
History | 5 |
...Are humanrights innate and universal?
Post WWII on the 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of HumanRights (UDHR) was espoused by the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to agree on the notion that such atrocities that occurred throughout the Great War and the Second World War would not ever be reciprocated. The document that was drawn up in less than two years by the UN and Western states, and although ambitious it would guarantee a premise for life and living for every individual all over the world. The UDHR are founded on nobility, equality and reverence, and are said to be aimed at all cultures and religions within the West and East of the globe. However there is great discrepancy regarding the justification and practicality of humanrights all over the world due to political, economic and cultural differences and limitations. Universal means that ‘something’ affects, applies or is completed by everyone all over the world – there is no distinctive bias shown and equal policies are applied. Innate, in relation to humanrights, means that people are given natural rights purely based on the fact that he/she is human and alive. Therefore, are humanrights universal and innate or is the Universal Declaration of Human...
We will deal with each of these in turn, with reference to international legal instruments and bodies. We will observe first of all how the rights of individuals, although falling outside the province of international law as it was conceived in the1600s, began to seep into the framework of international legal rules over the centuries, eventually coming to prominence during the 'humanrights era' that followed the end of the Second World War. We will consider secondly the various mechanisms that have been put in place by the international community in order to deal with the enforcement and observance of individual rights enshrined in international legal instruments. Lastly, we will critically assess the claim that questions about individual rights should be the sole concern of domestic legal systems.
The scholars who laid the intellectual foundations of international law in the Western world, like Hugo Grotius (1625) and John Locke (1690), all stressed in their writings that legal systems, be they domestic or international, were founded in natural law and commonly accepted standards of (Christian) morality. It may seem surprising, therefore, that for centuries the rights of individuals played no significant role in the framework of international law. International law, as the name suggests, was the body of legal rules governing the relations...
Moral Problem in a Contemporary Society
University of Minnesota
War on Terrorism and Basic HumanRights
The essential moral fact about war is that the innocent are suitable targets of physical violence. The morality of the battlefield discriminates not between the innocent and the guilty, but between the combatant and the noncombatant. Combatants, however, cannot be equated with the morally guilty, since opposing combatants are likely to have equally legal entitlements to moral innocence. Each is licensed, legally and morally, to try to kill as many of the other side as possible. Each enjoys this license because each acts in self-defense against the other. The reciprocal burden of risk generates the space that permits injury to the morally innocent. Yet, every military force also has a persuasive ethical duty to abate the risk of injury to its own forces. Each endeavors to create an asymmetrical state of affairs in which the enemy suffers the risk of injury more while its own forces remain safe. The absurdity of riskless warfare arises when the chase of asymmetry undermines reciprocity. Without reciprocal imposition of risk, what is the moral underpinning for injuring the morally innocent? Humanrights belong to each and every member of humankind irrespective of sex, race, nationality, socio-economic group,...
...Humanrights refer to the natural or basic rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled to. Traditionally, the rights and freedoms of citizens were protected by an Act of Parliament or by the judges in developing the common law. Prior to World War II, the convention for the protection of humanright and freedom was drafted in 1950s by the Council of Europe. It was drafted because of disgust with fascism and an anxiety to protect basic freedom. On 1953, it has developed to become an international treaty, which all 47 countries of the continent of Europe are bound by the European Convention of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, also known as ECHR. United Kingdom (UK) was one of the first countries to sign the Convention in November 1950. Although it entered into force in the UK on 3rd Sept 1953, UK chose not to incorporate its terms into domestic law. Therefore UK was only bound to ECHR on the matter of international law and not within the domestic legal system. During 1960s, there are few parties concerned had campaigned for the enactment for HumanRights Act in UK. These parties are the commentators and public interest groups. However, due to several criticisms and the reluctant of UK government to pass such legislation, the HRA did not enact until 1998. Though the convention did not incorporate into domestic law, UK...
...The incorporation of The European Convention of HumanRights (ECHR) into the domestic law under The HumanRights Act 1998 (HRA) as a first step towards a better protection of rights, Finally, the ultimate question, whether to incorporate or not? The judiciary was ill equipped to assume the mantle of guardian of individual rights in the face of executive power and the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. It concerns over the matter in which ‘incorporation’ will affect the conventional balance power between the judges and the Parliament.
Professor Dicey stated that the Rule of Law(1) required judicial protection of Humanrights and he placed a responsibility on the administration of the country to ensure arbitrariness and inequality was not procured during the governing process. Whether or not UK could submit to this Rule of Law depends on whether judges have been able to protect rights when they faced government’s arbitrariness.
In the absence of a written constitution, the protection of HumanRights had been given little emphasis. The doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy compels judges to construe and comply with Acts of Parliament when interpreting statutes and there is no rule of construction that requires judges to imply the sanctity of HumanRights into the ambiguously...