Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism
Show Less

Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism

Edited by Ben Saul

This Handbook brings together leading scholars and practitioners to examine the prolific body of international laws governing terrorism. It exhaustively covers the global response to terrorism in transnational criminal law, the international law on the use of force, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the law of State responsibility, the United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, UN specialised bodies, and regional organisations. It also addresses special legal issues in dealing with terrorism such as gender, religion, victims of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and customary law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 29: Special measures: Terrorism and control orders

Andrew Lynch


In 2005 both the United Kingdom and Australia established schemes for control orders, enabling the imposition of restrictions and conditions on individuals to prevent them from engaging in terrorism-related activity. The respective schemes shared an essential similarity, not simply because the UK legislation was a model for the later Australian enactment but also due to their grounding in the preventative logic that dominated legal responses to the threat of terrorism after the 11 September 2001 attacks (9/11). While international counter-terrorism law did not specifically require states to adopt control orders, they are a manifestation of the preventive approach to terrorism in Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) adopted after 9/11. However, the experience of the two schemes in practice, culminating in the demise of UK control orders in 2011, proved to be starkly different. Understanding why this was so requires an appreciation of a key distinction in the design of the two sets of control orders, as well as the contrasting security, criminal justice and constitutional settings in which both were created. Yet while the story of control orders in each jurisdiction was divergent, ultimately their utility as a special measure of anti-terrorism law was discredited in both.

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

or login to access all content.