Suchergebnisse

This article examines key provisions of Australia's antiterrorism legislation introduced in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks. Never before in history has Australia witnessed a comparable overhaul of national security legislation and the introduction of laws that significantly curtail civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. A question that thus needs to be addressed is whether or not Canberra's drastic legislative measures are justified by the severity of the terrorism threat to Australia. It is argued that the actual risk of a terrorism attack occurring on Australian soil is rather low. As a consequence, the Howard government's antiterrorism laws constitute a disproportionate response that has worrisome long-term implications for Australia's legal system and its society more generally.

This article examines the United Kingdom's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) from an international human rights law perspective. It argues that both pieces of legislation raise serious concerns in relation to international legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both international treaties allow for 'derogation from certain provisions in times of 'public emergency. While the United Kingdom has officially derogated from some of its treaty obligations, Australia has yet to submit a similar notification. This article argues, however, that the United Kingdom's derogation is unlawful. Likewise, current circumstances in Australia would not permit lawful derogation from the ICCPR.

This article examines key provisions of Australia's antiterrorism legislation introduced in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks. Never before in history has Australia witnessed a comparable overhaul of national security legislation and the introduction of laws that significantly curtail civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. A question that thus needs to be addressed is whether or not Canberra's drastic legislative measures are justified by the severity of the terrorism threat to Australia. It is argued that the actual risk of a terrorism attack occurring on Australian soil is rather low. As a consequence, the Howard government's antiterrorism laws constitute a disproportionate response that has worrisome long-term implications for Australia's legal system and its society more generally.

This article examines the United Kingdom's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) from an international human rights law perspective. It argues that both pieces of legislation raise serious concerns in relation to international legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both international treaties allow for 'derogation from certain provisions in times of 'public emergency. While the United Kingdom has officially derogated from some of its treaty obligations, Australia has yet to submit a similar notification. This article argues, however, that the United Kingdom's derogation is unlawful. Likewise, current circumstances in Australia would not permit lawful derogation from the ICCPR.

On 17 January 2012 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its judgment in Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom.1 Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric once described as 'Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe', was convicted in absentia in Jordan for various terrorist offences.2 He alleges, however, that part of the evidence against him had been obtained under torture. In 1994 he was granted refugee status and permitted to remain in the United Kingdom (UK) temporarily. Qatada later applied for indefinite leave to stay. While his application was pending, he was arrested in October 2002 and detained without charge or trial under the now-repealed Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In March 2005 he was released from detention and put under a 'control order' under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. A few months later, the UK government sought to deport Qatada to his native Jordan, having first concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Jordanian government that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The deportation order was challenged before English courts, but ultimately upheld by the House of Lords in RB (FC) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department and OO v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2009.3 In contrast, the ECtHR ruled unanimously that the UK could not lawfully deport Qatada to Jordan. The decision was criticized by Home Secretary Theresa May as 'unacceptable' and predictably led to several Conservative backbenchers in the House of Commons calling on the government to withdraw from the ECHR.4