Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects and the right to liberty and security
Author: Money-Kyrle, Rebecca H.
ISNI:       0000 0003 6764 1681
Awarding Body: University of Oxford
Current Institution: University of Oxford
Date of Award: 2011
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Thesis embargoed until 31 Dec 2099
Access from Institution:
This thesis assesses the UK Terrorism Act 2000’s stop and search and pre-charge detention powers against liberty and security rights. It proposes that criminalizing ‘terrorism’, and legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, depends on moral and legal norms defining legitimate sovereign power. External norms of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention define and legitimize external defensive actions by the state to protect nation state security. Individual liberty and security rights, specifically pursuant to article 9, ICCPR and article 5 ECHR, have a special moral and legal status externally, but are not universally determinative of sovereign legitimacy. The thesis argues that these external norms accommodate contrasting paradigms of internal legitimacy, the ‘security state’ and the ‘liberal state’. Conceptually, sovereign legitimacy in the former is grounded on heteronymous collective or ideological values, grounding fundamental obligations legitimizing ‘balancing’ of individual liberty and security against security of those ultimate norms. The ‘balancing metaphor’ and exceptionalist theories are conceptually located within the security state paradigm. Conversely, political and individual autonomy (liberty and security of the person) circumscribe legitimacy of liberal state action, grounding fundamental obligations to prevent and punish harms, and to refrain from violating individual autonomy unless justified by those obligations. Liberal rule of law standards, including due process rights, are legitimized by the instrumental role of law as the primary source of justification in the liberal state. Evaluating the policy justifications, enactment, and scope of the TA provisions against those norms, the thesis concludes they contradict liberal norms, violate international norms and individual legal rights to liberty and security, and undermine the rule of law and due process rights. The pre-emptive counter-terrorism policy, balancing national security against individual liberty, and degradation of due process rights, belies a security state approach.
Supervisor: Galligan, Denis Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Constitutional & administrative law ; Human rights ; Criminal Law- Human rights ; Criminal Law - Public international law ; terrorism ; counter-terrorism ; human rights ; liberty and security