Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law

Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law

Crossing Legal Boundaries in Defence of the State

Edited by Aniceto Masferrer and Clive Walker

The initial responses to 9/11 engaged categorical questions about ‘war’, ‘terrorism’, and ‘crime’. Now the implementation of counter-terrorism law is infused with dichotomies – typically depicted as the struggle between security and human rights, but explored more exactingly in this book as traversing boundaries around the roles of lawyers, courts, and crimes; the relationships between police, military, and security agencies; and the interplay of international and national enforcement. The contributors to this book explore how developments in counter-terrorism have resulted in pressures to cross important ethical, legal and organizational boundaries. They identify new tensions and critique the often unwanted outcomes within common law, civil law, and international legal systems.

Chapter 4: Myths and misunderstandings about security, rights and liberty in the United Kingdom

Jon Moran

Subjects: law - academic, criminal law and justice, human rights, terrorism and security law


This chapter looks at the relationship between national security, human rights and civil liberties in the United Kingdom under the successive Labour governments in power from 1997 to 2010. It examines the idea that national security and human rights are in a ‘trade-off’ situation: that national security can only be increased by a reduction in rights, or that protecting rights makes the state less able to defend citizens’ security. It examines this debate after 2001 during the UK’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’. The chapter makes a number of points about this ‘trade-off’ debate. The first is that both sides of the debate have often used an exaggerated and unhelpful language. For example, the Labour governments, particularly in the period from 2001 to 2007, used intense and intolerant language to describe the threat faced by UK society and the need for a response. After that period, the government itself stated that it would stop using the term ‘war on terror’ because it was inappropriate. On the opposing side, civil liberties groups in the UK sometimes made inappropriate comparisons between the UK and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, as shall be discussed. More generally, some critics implied Britain was moving towards a type of authoritarian state when in fact the situation was much more balanced: the agencies involved in counter-terrorism were more accountable than ever before and the main problems were, for example, the growth in surveillance generally (often in the private sector) rather than that connected to counter-terrorism.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information