Counter-terrorist hybrid orders and the right to a fair trial: the perpetual quasi-emergency

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/622544
Title:
Counter-terrorist hybrid orders and the right to a fair trial: the perpetual quasi-emergency
Authors:
Stanford, Ben
Abstract:
This thesis examines a number of closely connected counter-terrorist executive mechanisms in the United Kingdom (UK) and the manner in which they are administered, in order to evaluate the implications of the mechanisms for, and ultimately their compatibility with, the right to a fair trial under international human rights law (IHRL). More specifically, this study critically analyses Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). For reasons made clear in this thesis, these mechanisms are termed ‘counter-terrorist hybrid orders’ and are collectively analysed as such. As the study identifies a number of issues pertaining to the current design and administration of these mechanisms that can adversely affect the right to a fair trial, the thesis argues that they should be substantially reformed to make them more consistent with IHRL fair trial standards. Moreover, the thesis examines how these mechanisms, as they are currently designed and administered, have been accepted in a legal system with a recognised and long-established attachment to upholding high human rights standards. Having identified, generated and analysed a substantial body of research to perform this task, the thesis argues that the acceptance of the mechanisms as they are currently administered may have occurred as a result of the establishment of a state of ‘perpetual quasi-emergency’. This denotes a particular legal phenomenon in which the UK has responded to an evolving legal problem, namely, how to deal with terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted, deported, or indefinitely detained, in a manner that, whilst being grounded in law, actually resembles the behaviour of States enduring ‘prolonged emergencies’. The thesis asserts that the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, which creates the space necessary for the acceptance of these mechanisms, was established and is preserved by a number of legal and extra-legal factors. As such, some of the research, analysis and methods used to evaluate the phenomena in this study represents an original contribution to knowledge. This study encompasses a variety of approaches in order to examine a particular type of counter-terrorist power, the implications of these mechanisms for the right to a fair trial under IHRL, and the relationships between these issues and wider society. The study requires traditional doctrinal analysis when exploring what the right to a fair trial in the context of national security entails, and in order to examine the various counter-terrorist hybrid order regimes in light of this framework. When assessing what factors may play a role in the establishment and preservation of the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, the study necessitates methods which are less doctrinal and more socio-legal in nature.
Affiliation:
University of Bedfordshire
Publisher:
University of Bedfordshire
Issue Date:
Nov-2017
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/622544
Type:
Thesis or dissertation
Language:
en
Description:
A thesis submitted to the University of Bedfordshire in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Appears in Collections:
PhD e-theses

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorStanford, Benen
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-13T12:31:27Z-
dc.date.available2018-03-13T12:31:27Z-
dc.date.issued2017-11-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/622544-
dc.descriptionA thesis submitted to the University of Bedfordshire in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophyen
dc.description.abstractThis thesis examines a number of closely connected counter-terrorist executive mechanisms in the United Kingdom (UK) and the manner in which they are administered, in order to evaluate the implications of the mechanisms for, and ultimately their compatibility with, the right to a fair trial under international human rights law (IHRL). More specifically, this study critically analyses Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). For reasons made clear in this thesis, these mechanisms are termed ‘counter-terrorist hybrid orders’ and are collectively analysed as such. As the study identifies a number of issues pertaining to the current design and administration of these mechanisms that can adversely affect the right to a fair trial, the thesis argues that they should be substantially reformed to make them more consistent with IHRL fair trial standards. Moreover, the thesis examines how these mechanisms, as they are currently designed and administered, have been accepted in a legal system with a recognised and long-established attachment to upholding high human rights standards. Having identified, generated and analysed a substantial body of research to perform this task, the thesis argues that the acceptance of the mechanisms as they are currently administered may have occurred as a result of the establishment of a state of ‘perpetual quasi-emergency’. This denotes a particular legal phenomenon in which the UK has responded to an evolving legal problem, namely, how to deal with terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted, deported, or indefinitely detained, in a manner that, whilst being grounded in law, actually resembles the behaviour of States enduring ‘prolonged emergencies’. The thesis asserts that the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, which creates the space necessary for the acceptance of these mechanisms, was established and is preserved by a number of legal and extra-legal factors. As such, some of the research, analysis and methods used to evaluate the phenomena in this study represents an original contribution to knowledge. This study encompasses a variety of approaches in order to examine a particular type of counter-terrorist power, the implications of these mechanisms for the right to a fair trial under IHRL, and the relationships between these issues and wider society. The study requires traditional doctrinal analysis when exploring what the right to a fair trial in the context of national security entails, and in order to examine the various counter-terrorist hybrid order regimes in light of this framework. When assessing what factors may play a role in the establishment and preservation of the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, the study necessitates methods which are less doctrinal and more socio-legal in nature.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherUniversity of Bedfordshireen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectcounter-terrorismen
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen
dc.subjectjusticeen
dc.subjecthuman rightsen
dc.subjectemergency powersen
dc.titleCounter-terrorist hybrid orders and the right to a fair trial: the perpetual quasi-emergencyen
dc.typeThesis or dissertationen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Bedfordshireen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhDen_GB
dc.type.qualificationlevelPhDen
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Bedfordshireen
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons
All Items in UOBREP are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.