Controlling the executive in times of terrorism: Competing perspectives on effective oversight mechanisms

43Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The well-established pattern of Executive expansionism and limited oversight of Executive action in times of terrorism is problematic from the civil libertarian point of view. How to limit such action has been the subject of much scholarship, a large amount of which focuses on perceptions of institutional competence rather than effectiveness. For the authors, the effective control of security-focused state action is to be judged by the extent to which it consists only of action that is necessary and proportionate and thereby strikes an appropriate balance between security exigencies and individual rights. This article, written and structured in dialectic form, presents competing perspectives on effective oversight mechanisms: on the one hand, an extra-constitutionalism perspective, proposing a limited role for the Judiciary and emphasizing the need for legislative and democratic controls; and on the other, an argument for judicial muscularity. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

de Londras, F., & Davis, F. F. (2010). Controlling the executive in times of terrorism: Competing perspectives on effective oversight mechanisms. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqp031

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free