Articles for category: Two Decades Later: Tracing the Constitutional Fallout

Staatsgeheimnisse und effektiver Rechtsschutz nach 9/11

Staaten haben Geheimnisse, die sie nach ihren innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften vor einer Veröffentlichung schützen. Besonders problematisch ist die Geheimhaltung, wenn sich das Verfahren um gravierende Menschenrechtsverletzungen dreht, die von staatlichen Stellen verübt worden sind. Hier kann die Geheimhaltung die justizielle Aufarbeitung staatlichen Unrechts beeinträchtigen oder gar ganz verhindern und den individuellen Anspruch auf effektiven Rechtsschutz leerlaufen lassen.

Enabling Digital Authoritarianism in the Name of Counterterrorism

Nigeria's transition to a digital economy is in full swing. As terrorism and violent extremism are ravaging certain parts of the country, the mounting insecurity has necessitated huge budgetary allocations to national security, giving way to a new kind of digital authoritarianism. Serious concerns have been raised regarding the misuse of collected data and arbitrary surveillance, which undermine human rights and civic freedoms.

The European Union and Preventive (In)Justice

The expansion of the EU counter-terrorism acquis has signified what I have called the preventive turn in European security policy. Preventive justice is understood here as the exercise of state power in order to prevent future acts which are deemed to constitute security threats. There are three main shifts in the preventive justice paradigm: (i) a shift from an investigation of acts which have taken place to an emphasis on suspicion; (ii) a shift from targeted action to generalised surveillance; and, underpinning both, (iii) a temporal shift from the past to the future.

Die Europäische Union und präventive (Un-)Gerechtigkeit

Die Ausweitung der EU-Befugnisse im Bereich der Terrorismusbekämpfung steht für die präventive Wende in der europäischen Sicherheitspolitik. Unter Präventivjustiz wird hier die Ausübung staatlicher Macht verstanden, um zukünftige Handlungen zu verhindern, die als Sicherheitsbedrohung angesehen werden. Im Paradigma der Präventivjustiz gibt es drei Hauptverschiebungen: (i) eine Verlagerung von der Untersuchung von Handlungen, die stattgefunden haben, hin zu einer Betonung des Verdachts; (ii) eine Verlagerung von gezielten Maßnahmen hin zu allgemeiner Überwachung; und, was beide untermauert, (iii) eine zeitliche Verlagerung von der Vergangenheit in die Zukunft.

From the War on Terror to Climate Change

From terrorism and economic crisis, to COVID-19 and climate change; the first decades of the 21st Century have seen democracies lurch from crisis to crisis, implementing legal and political responses to tackle the threat at hand. Many of these ostensibly emergency responses have, however, become permanent, raising profound challenges to the legitimacy of both the constitutional norms impacted by the emergency response, and the emergency response itself. This plea to emergency must, however, be interrogated; Ultimately, what is key to understanding permanent emergencies is not the threat but the decision-maker that claims such an emergency exists.

The other legacy

The 9/11 attacks triggered a new practice of and renewed interest in emergency powers. Without doubt, the United States were at the forefront of the enhanced exercise of such powers, but France is a very interesting example of the many issues and challenges raised by states of emergencies' normalization. France has been governed under a state of emergency for more than half of the time that has elapsed since the attacks of 13 November 2015.

Counter-Terrorism, the Rule of Law and the ‚Counter-Law‘ Critique

The Rule of Law requires that the law be a reliable and non-oppressive guide to how citizens should act: as such, the laws governing every citizen must be rationally knowable and voluntarily followable (and, by extension, open to rational challenge and justification). Tendencies in counter-terrorist legislation clearly run counter to the Rule of Law thus understood. Every move away from knowable and followable laws is a move away from it.

The Dilemma of Mild Emergencies that are Accepted as Consistent with Human Rights

Amid the pandemic and the war in the Ukraine, Canada had a quiet emergency. On 14 February 2022, the federal government used the Emergencies Act to respond to a three week occupation of the Parliament building and various border blockades. This was a mild and quick emergency, as far as emergencies go. Mild emergencies that arguably respect rights are better than severe emergencies that do not, yet there is cause for concern.

Das Dilemma der milden Notfälle, die als mit Menschenrechten vereinbar akzeptiert werden

Inmitten der Pandemie und des Krieges in der Ukraine herrschte in Kanada ein stiller Notfall. Am 14. Februar 2022 nutzte die Bundesregierung das Notstandsgesetz, um auf eine dreiwöchige Besetzung des Parlamentsgebäudes und verschiedene Grenzblockaden zu reagieren. Es handelte sich um einen vergleichsweise milden und schnellen Notfall. Milde Notfälle, bei denen Rechte angeblich Beachtung finden, sind besser als schwere Notfälle, bei denen dies nicht der Fall ist. Dennoch besteht Anlass zur Sorge.

Law’s Fate under the US “War on Terror”

More than 20 years after the US declared “war on terror” we must assess the damage it inflicted on the core values embodied in the rule of law and the success of efforts to defend them. The fate of the rule of law — whose raison d’être is to restrain the state from abusing its power — itself depends on politics. Party control of the executive and legislature (which in turn shapes the appointment of judges) was the single most powerful determinant of responses to the numerous abuses under all four administrations since 9/11.