Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.738095
Title: Counter-terrorist hybrid orders and the right to a fair trial : the perpetual quasi-emergency
Author: Stanford, Ben
ISNI:       0000 0004 7226 7580
Awarding Body: University of Bedfordshire
Current Institution: University of Bedfordshire
Date of Award: 2017
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis examines a number of closely connected counter-terrorist executive mechanisms in the United Kingdom (UK) and the manner in which they are administered, in order to evaluate the implications of the mechanisms for, and ultimately their compatibility with, the right to a fair trial under international human rights law (IHRL). More specifically, this study critically analyses Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). For reasons made clear in this thesis, these mechanisms are termed ‘counter-terrorist hybrid orders’ and are collectively analysed as such. As the study identifies a number of issues pertaining to the current design and administration of these mechanisms that can adversely affect the right to a fair trial, the thesis argues that they should be substantially reformed to make them more consistent with IHRL fair trial standards. Moreover, the thesis examines how these mechanisms, as they are currently designed and administered, have been accepted in a legal system with a recognised and long-established attachment to upholding high human rights standards. Having identified, generated and analysed a substantial body of research to perform this task, the thesis argues that the acceptance of the mechanisms as they are currently administered may have occurred as a result of the establishment of a state of ‘perpetual quasi-emergency’. This denotes a particular legal phenomenon in which the UK has responded to an evolving legal problem, namely, how to deal with terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted, deported, or indefinitely detained, in a manner that, whilst being grounded in law, actually resembles the behaviour of States enduring ‘prolonged emergencies’. The thesis asserts that the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, which creates the space necessary for the acceptance of these mechanisms, was established and is preserved by a number of legal and extra-legal factors. As such, some of the research, analysis and methods used to evaluate the phenomena in this study represents an original contribution to knowledge. This study encompasses a variety of approaches in order to examine a particular type of counter-terrorist power, the implications of these mechanisms for the right to a fair trial under IHRL, and the relationships between these issues and wider society. The study requires traditional doctrinal analysis when exploring what the right to a fair trial in the context of national security entails, and in order to examine the various counter-terrorist hybrid order regimes in light of this framework. When assessing what factors may play a role in the establishment and preservation of the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, the study necessitates methods which are less doctrinal and more socio-legal in nature.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.738095  DOI: Not available
Keywords: counter-terrorism ; United Kingdom ; justice ; human rights ; emergency powers
Share: