CVE Research Hub Knowledge Platform · Kenya
Human rights Article

Judicial Responses to Counter-Terrorism Law after September 11

Patrick F. Larue, December 2016

Summary

The role of the courts is quite important, especially in the protection of individual rights and liberties. Many counter-terrorism policies implemented at the national level often infringe on these rights, and courts are the best line of defense against these violations of liberty. However, courts do not always rule in favor of liberty, sometimes ruling in favor of a strict government policy. This analysis seeks to explain the conditions that may lead courts to rule in favor of, or against, the government, arguing that political fragmentation is a potentially key factor in determining when particular case outcomes occur.

Keywords

Counter-terrorism law political fragmentation judicial decision-making

Preview

Metadata

Theme
Human rights
Type
Article
Format
Adobe PDF
Published
16 December 2016
Author
Patrick F. Larue
Access
Open access

Related publications

Enhance approaches to address the evolving nature of Violent Extremist Attacks …

According to the Centre for Human Rights and Policy Studies (CHRIPS) observatory report, the majority of attacks in …

Trends of Violent Extremist Attacks and Arrests in Kenya, January - December 20…

This report draws from the Terror Attacks and Arrests Observatory of the Centre for Human Rights and Policy …

The psychologisation of counterextremism: unpacking PREVENT

: The burgeoning ‘pre-crime’ industry reveals a deep overlap between national security and mental health. The UK’s counter-radicalisation …

Managing role expectations and emotions in encounters with extremism: Norwegian…

To prevent radicalisation and violent extremism, many European countries have adopted a multiagency approach, consisting of both police, …