Cargando…
Critical debates on counter-terrorist judicial review /
"Is judicial review an effective and appropriate way to regulate counter-terrorism measures? Some argue that the judiciary is ill-equipped to examine such measures, for instance because they lack the expertise of the institutions which bring them about under exigent conditions. Others claim tha...
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | , |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York :
Cambridge University Press,
2014.
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Cover; Half-title; Title page; Copyright information; Table of contents; Contributors; Acknowledgements; Introduction: Counter-terrorism judicial review: beyond dichotomies; Part I Judging counter-terrorism judicial review; 1 Counter-terrorism judicial review as regulatory constitutionalism; I The cases; (a) Khadr; (b) Munaf; (c) Rahmatullah; II Judicial Technique of Internal/External Construction; III Regulatory constitutionalism and the apparent self-imposed limitation on judicial muscularity; Conclusion; 2 Counter-terrorism judicial review by a traditionally weak judiciary; Introduction.
- I Background: role of the judiciary in Danish constitutional traditionII When the stakes get high: judicial review in counter-terrorism cases; III Recent Danish counter-terrorism case law: measured not deferential review; (a) Lawfulness of detention of alien terrorist suspects subject to expulsion orders; (b) Due process and the expulsion of alien terrorist suspects; (c) Non-refoulement and the extradition of terrorist suspects; (d) Nulla poena and the definition of terrorism in controversial circumstances; Conclusion.
- 3 When good cases go bad: unintended consequences of rights-friendly judgmentsIntroduction; I Cases gone bad; (a) Group I: rights trade-offs; ''Belmarsh''; Hamdi; (b) Group II: political blowback; Charkaoui; Rasul, Hamdan and Boumediene; II Good intentions, bad results; (a) What went wrong?; (b) Status distinctions; (c) Procedural rules; (d) Dysfunctional dialogue; Conclusion; 4 The rhetoric and reality of judicial review of counter-terrorism actions: the United States experience; Introduction; I Boumediene and its negation; II Refusing to extend habeas corpus to detainees held in Afghanistan.
- III Failure of judiciary to provide accountability for tortureIV Explaining the disconnect between the Supreme Court''s assertive judicial review of detention decisions and the judiciary''spassivity; Conclusion; Part II Beyond counter-terrorism judicial review; 5 Emergency law as administrative law; Introduction; I Dimensions of War; II Administrative law as an alternative to ''emergency''law; II Accountability and administrative law; Conclusion; 6 The politics of counter-terrorism judicial review: creating effective parliamentary scrutiny; I The basis of (my) judicial review scepticism.
- II Australia''sparliamentary scrutiny modelIII Models of dialogic review; Conclusion; 7 Independent reviewers as alternative: an empirical study from Australia and the United Kingdom; I Path to independent anti-terrorism review; II Official mandate; III Independence; IV Influence; Conclusion; Postscript; 8 Public inquiries as an attempt to fill accountability gaps left by judicial and legislative review; Introduction; I Canada''sArar inquiry; II United Kingdom''sDetainee Inquiry; Conclusions; (a) Persistent transnational accountability gaps; (b) Plugging domestic accountability gaps.