Between Law and the Exception: The UN 1267 Ombudsperson as a Hybrid Model of Legal Expertise

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 833-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
GAVIN SULLIVAN ◽  
MARIEKE DE GOEDE
Keyword(s):  
War On Terror ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Hybrid Procedures ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
Evidentiary Standards ◽  
Legal Expertise

AbstractSecurity measures taken in the name of the ‘war on terror’ have frequently been understood to operate through a domain of exception, defined as an extra-legal space of intervention where normal rules of juridical protection and due process are suspended. Yet whilst most analyses of the exception are critically reliant on notions of legal threshold, they are largely dismissive of the potentially productive nature of legal contestation. This article inquires into the dynamic confrontation between law and exception in the context of the UN 1267 sanctions system, focusing on the Office of the Ombudsperson as an institutional experiment designed to remedy the fundamental rights deficiencies of the regime. Drawing on Agamben's analysis of the exception as a ‘hybrid space’ and Dyzenhaus's concept of the ‘legal grey hole’, our analysis of the Ombudsperson demonstrates the emergence of novel, hybrid procedures and evidentiary standards being deployed in the 1267 delisting process. First, we assess the Ombudsperson's logics of decision-making and argue that their appeals to fairness hinge on the production of a temporal chasm that legitimizes the deployment of intelligence material in listing cases. Second, we show that the Ombudsperson is in the process of carving out novel evidential standards that are more attentive to notions of inference and speculation than conventional standards of proof. These standards serve to fortify the use of sanctions as a pre-emptive security measure and do not, in principle, appear to exclude material that may be obtained by torture.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

scholarly journals Evaluating Counterterrorism Spending

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Mueller ◽  
Mark G. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Successful Attack ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
Reduce Risk ◽  
The Cost

In this article, we present a simple back-of-the-envelope approach for evaluating whether counterterrorism security measures reduce risk sufficiently to justify their costs. The approach uses only four variables: the consequences of a successful attack, the likelihood of a successful attack, the degree to which the security measure reduces risk, and the cost of the security measure. After measuring the cost of a counterterrorism measure, we explore a range of outcomes for the costs of terrorist attacks and a range of possible estimates for how much risk might be reduced by the measure. Then working from this mix of information and assumptions, we can calculate how many terrorist attacks (and of what size) would need to be averted to justify the cost of the counterterrorism measure in narrow cost–benefit terms. To illustrate this approach, we first apply it to the overall increases in domestic counterterrorism expenditures that have taken place since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and alternatively we apply it to just the FBI's counterterrorism efforts. We then evaluate evidence on the number and size of terrorist attacks that have actually been averted or might have been averted since 9/11.

Judicial Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
The Us ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Takings Clause ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The exercise of extensive powers by authorities during the recovery and resolution process may interfere with constitutionally protected fundamental rights of stakeholder in a multitude of ways. Particularly relevant are the right to conduct a business and the right to property under the EU Charter of fundamental rights, as well as the takings clause under the US constitution. A balance needs to be struck between the aims and objectives of bank resolution and the rights of investors and the requirements of due process. This is normally achieved through expedited and limited judicial review. This chapter assesses whether and to what extent the respective procedures are in line with constitutional and fundamental rights requirements.

scholarly journals La cuestión prejudicial europea ante planteamientos más que dudosos

2017 ◽  
pp. 270
Author(s):  
Luis Jimena Quesada
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
State Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Specific Discipline ◽  
The Eu

El presente artículo toma como punto de partida la importancia de la cuestión prejudicial como instrumento fundamental del actual constitucionalismo europeo multinivel, en la medida en que a través de él cabe dotar de fuerza a los principios esenciales del Estado de Derecho y de la UE como comunidad de Derecho (especialmente seguridad jurídica, responsabilidad, tutela judicial efectiva y optimización de los derechos fundamentales). Con tal premisa, se efectúa un análisis crítico de estrategias más que dudosas (no siempre aparentemente guiadas por buena fe procesal) que, por acción o por omisión, vulneran el artículo 267 TFUE poniendo en entredicho la fluida articulación del sistema jurídico europeo (de las normas de producción nacional y supranacional) y el correcto reparto del poder judicial europeo (entre la Justicia nacional y supranacional) y, con ello, la óptima realización del sistema europeo de derechos fundamentales. Finalmente, el trabajo concluye con unas propuestas que pretenden mejorar el diálogo judicial supranacional a través de un verdadero espíritu de colaboración que tenga el respaldo de una sólida formación de la Judicatura en Derecho europeo, de una voluntad jurisdiccional positiva (inspirada en el principio favor libertatis), de una dinamización de la obligación de formulación la cuestión prejudicial en los casos previstos en el artículo 267 TFUE y de una disciplina precisa de la doble prejudicialidad (ante la Jurisdicción Constitucional nacional y ante el Tribunal de Justicia).This article takes as its starting point the importance of the preliminary ruling as a fundamental instrument of the current multi-level European constitutionalism, since it allows for strengthening the basic principles of the rule of law at both the State level and the EU level (especially legal certainty, responsibility, due process of law and optimization of fundamental rights). With such a premise, a critical analysis of more than dubious strategies (not always apparently guided by good procedural faith) is carried out. Indeed, these strategies, by action or omission, breach Article 267 TFEU by challenging the fluid articulation of the European legal system (of national and supranational provisions) as well as the correct distribution of the European judicial power (between national and supranational courts) and, as a result, the optimal realization of the European system of fundamental rights. Finally, the paper concludes with proposals that seek to improve supranational judicial dialogue through a true spirit of collaboration supported by a solid training of judges in European law, a positive jurisdictional will (inspired by the favor libertatis principle), a re-dimension of the obligation to submit the preliminary ruling in the cases referred to in Article 267 TFEU and a specific discipline of a double preliminary ruling (both before the national Constitutional Court and before the Court of Justice).

scholarly journals Fear and No-fly Listing in Canada: The Biopolitics of the “War on Terror”

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Werbin
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Scientific Language ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Media Reporting ◽  
Normal People ◽  
The Right

Abstract: Canada’s no-fly list is examined here as a biopolitical plot line of the “war on terror”: one that is constructed on techno-scientific language and practices that authorize and legitimize “us” versus “them” discriminatory dichotomies and thinking. Given that the misidentification of “normal” people on no-fly lists is a rampant story in media reporting, this analysis also reveals that the “truth” of the efficient and effective policing of high-risk milieus of circulation, like airports, through discriminatory logics is a precarious one at best. The author argues that the no-fly list plot line of the “war on terror” masks the techno-deterministic and discriminatory thinking behind these post-9/11 security measures—that the right technological arrangement, deployed in the right way, can invariably solve any governmental problem, including terrorism.Résumé : Cet article examine la liste canadienne d’exclusion aérienne comme élément biopolitique de la « guerre contre la terreur », élément qui emploie un langage et des pratiques technoscientifiques autorisant et légitimant une dichotomie et une manière de penser discriminatoires fondées sur le « nous » contre « eux ». Étant donné que l’inclusion de gens « normaux » sur cette liste est un fait fréquemment médiatisé, cette analyse met en question l’idée que la surveillance de milieux à haute circulation comme les aéroports au moyen de logiques discriminatoires soit pratique ou efficace. L’auteur soutient que de telles listes d’exclusion aérienne qui font partie des mesures de sécurité prises après le 11 septembre pendant la « guerre contre la terreur » recèlent un mode de pensée techno-déterministe et discriminatoire où l’on croit à tort qu’il est possible de résoudre n’importe quel problème national, y compris le terrorisme, en recourant à une technologie quelconque qu’on pourrait utiliser de manière appropriée.

Of General Principles and Trojan Horses — Procedural Due Process in Immigration Proceedings under EU Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1006-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Bast
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Legal Position

AbstractThe present paper concerns procedural guarantees in immigration proceedings, thus addressing the broader question of the role of the general principles of EU law in respect of administrative decision-making. The main assertion is that certain requirements of procedural due process are recognized in EU law as fundamental rights. They must therefore be observed by Member State authorities when decisions significantly affecting the legal position of a person are taken, provided that the decision is at least partly determined by EU law. The relevant immigration proceedings involve measures related to the termination of residence as well as decisions related to denial or loss of a particular legal status. In effect, the actual scope of application of the EU's administrative fundamental rights is determined by the actual scope of activity of the European legislator. The author concludes that even a relatively ‘shallow’ harmonization of laws can lead to a ‘deep’ reshaping of the domestic legal order, by becoming a Trojan Horse for fundamental rights heretofore alien to some national immigration regimes.

scholarly journals The Citizens’ Constitutional Rights Regarding Habitable and Wholesome Environment: Towards a Law State that Protects the Environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Nyoman Satyayudha Dananjaya ◽  
Fuchikawa Kazuhiko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This paper aims to examine the protection of the environment in Indonesia which is part of the realization of a law state that guarantees the constitutional rights of its citizens. It is a legal research that reviews Indonesian constitutional and statutory provisions, besides adding a comparative perspective from a Japanese Constitution and legal system. It is found that the concept of a law state in Indonesia does not specifically follow the concept of a law state like what is meant in “rechtsstaat” or “the rule of law”. It has peculiar characteristics which indeed seem to adopt the noble values ??of those two concepts which clearly confesses in the constitution along with the elements and characters stated in it. One of the most prominent characteristics of a law state is the recognition and protection of human rights. In the Indonesian Constitution 1945, human rights as the fundamental rights of human beings have been arranged and compiled which is legally legitimized become constitutional rights. Among human rights, rights related to the environment include essential rights in array of international human rights formulations. Article 28 letter H of the Indonesian Constitution 1945 expressly states the rights to habitable and wholesome environment for citizen. The protection form can be a normative arrangement in the constitution or in a formal juridical through legislation. Protection of citizens' constitutional rights related to the environment is faced with due process of environmental protection that requires consistency in order to achieve the intention and direction of the Indonesian law state itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document