Britain's approach to balancing counter-terrorism laws with human rights

Abstract

This paper examines the UK's approach to balancing counter-terror laws with human rights and civil liberties after 9/11. Since then, a litany of legislation has been passed that some human rights commentators have labeled as overzealous and draconian. Because of the glut of counterterror laws instituted, only a fraction of the provisions contained within them will be reviewed including, indefinite detentions, stop and search rights, passport seizures, and Temporary Exclusion Orders. The potential for government abuse of far-reaching legislation is also highlighted through a case study of Miranda v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department and others. Part II analyzes how terrorism cases are dealt with through the UK's judicial system, along with the UK's contentious interaction with the European Court of Human Rights. The author finds that, although the UK possesses a robust legislative process with many checks and balances for countering the threat of terrorism, it should not compromise its international and domestic legal obligations in its search for security, or else risk losing its reputation as a model democracy, and potentially isolate disaffected communities even further.