Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
In a regional, national and global response to terrorism, the emphasis necessarily lies on preventing the next terrorist act. Yet, with prevention comes prediction: the need to identify and detain those considered likely to engage in a terrorist act in the future.
The detention of ‘suspected terrorists’ is intended, therefore, to thwart a potential terrorist act recognising that retrospective action is of no consequence given the severity of terrorist crime. Although preventative steps against those reasonably suspected to have an intention to commit a terrorist act is sound counter-terrorism policy, a law allowing arbitrary arrest and detention is not.
A State must carefully enact anti-terrorism laws to ensure that preventative detention does not wrongly accuse and grossly slander an innocent person, nor allow a terrorist to escape justice and walk free to continue their plans.
This book analyses preventative confinement in three models of counter-terrorism policy within the context of international human rights law: an ‘intelligence’ model of counter-terrorism which advocates preventative detention orders; a ‘war’ model which allows for even stricter executive detention orders; and a ‘criminal justice’ model, where pre-charge detention will often be the measure for confinement of suspected terrorists.
Counter-terrorism and the Detention of Suspected Terrorists argues that the way forward for Governments in counter-terrorism policy, from an international human rights law perspective, is a suggested model of pre-charge detention. The proposed model law recognises the exigencies of terrorist crime, but still maintains a sufficient threshold for appropriate detention.
The book is written from a global counter-terrorism perspective drawing on cases and practice from different jurisdictions including the US, the UK and Australia, as well as jurisprudence from the ECHR.