Talking security and rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 658-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ipek Demirsu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Frame Analysis ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Parliamentary Debates ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Moral Power ◽  
Liberal Rights ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Established Democracies

Abstract This article addresses the question of how draconian counter-terrorism policies are legitimized in long-established democracies. Being the heartland of liberal rights, the UK comes to the fore as a striking case where some of the most controversial security policies have been enacted. The study undertakes a systematic frame analysis of UK parliamentary debates with the help of ATLAS.ti, which allows the analyst to trace and map out recurrent concepts, themes, and arguments as well as their overall distribution. While demonstrating the workings of securitization in the formulation of key counter-terrorism legislation, the study unearths how the security narrative in the UK context evidently relies on the language of rights in invoking legitimacy. The study suggests that far from negating the indispensable status of human rights, security narrative resorts to the latter’s moral power and mimics rights language, heralding the weight of these international norms even in hard-core security matters.

scholarly journals Countering terrorism and radicalisation: Securitising social policy?

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Ragazzi
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Critical Security Studies ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Politics Of Religion ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Uk

While social and security policies have always overlapped in complex ways, recent developments in counter-terrorism policy suggest that Western European states, and the United Kingdom more specifically, are accelerating what can be termed the ‘securitisation of social policy’1 – namely, the increased submission of social policy actors and their practices to the logics of security and social control. With the PREVENT programme remaining highly controversial, what are the effects of these state practices? Has David Cameron’s project of ‘muscular liberalism’, aimed at integration and community cohesion, been enforced through counter-radicalisation policies? This themed issue examines preventative counter-terrorism policies in the UK and the politics of religion, ethnicity and race they enact. The relation between social policy and critical security studies is explored by an interdisciplinary group of scholars.

scholarly journals Politics of Exception and Unease: Immigration, Asylum and Terrorism in Parliamentary Debates in the UK

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 766-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jef Huysmans ◽  
Alessandra Buonfino
Keyword(s):  
Public Debate ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
The Political ◽  
Public Realm ◽  
Parliamentary Debates ◽  
The Public ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
The Uk

This article analyses how the British political elite has securitised migration and asylum since 9/11 by looking at when and how parliamentary debates linked counter-terrorism to immigration and/or asylum. The findings suggest that there is considerable reluctance within the political elite to introduce or especially sustain the connection between migration and terrorism too intensely in public debate. The parliamentary debates also show that for understanding the securitising of migration and asylum one cannot focus exclusively on the main security framing that is found in counter-terrorism debates, which we name ‘the politics of exception’. There is at least one other format, which we call ‘the politics of unease’, that is central to how the British political elite securitises migration and asylum, and contests it, in the public realm.

scholarly journals Deportation on the Basis of Diplomatic Assurances : Permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights? : a Critical Analysis of the Judgment of the ECtHR in Abu Qatada v the United Kingdom (2012) and Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bernadette Sangmeister
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Case Basis

<p>Inspired by the recently concluded litigation seeking to deport the radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada from the UK to Jordan, this paper aims at examining the 2012 judgment of the ECtHR by focusing on the question under which circumstances a deportation with diplomatic assurances (DWA) may be permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights. Relevant background information will be provided concerning the interplay of the use of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as concerning the particular circumstances that led to the ECtHR’s ruling in Abu Qatada. In the following analysis of the judgment, the focus will be on the interplay of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights with special regard to art 3 and art 6 of the Convention. Finally, the impact of this judgment on the future jurisprudence and the DWA policy will be shown. In the light of this judgment, it will be argued that the counter terrorism means of deporting a non-national terrorist suspect with diplomatic assurances seems to be compatible with the Convention if the diplomatic assurances given guarantee a sufficient protection of the human rights of the transferee, which due to the uncertain effects of the DWA policy, still has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.</p>

Freedom of Expression, Counter-Terrorism and the Internet in Light of the UK Terrorist Act 2006 and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daragh Murray
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Primary Interest ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

As a result of the ‘War on Terror’ domestic governments and the international community have paid increasing attention to counter-terrorism legislation. Given the meteoric rise in prominence of the Internet, and the ever-expanding ‘terrorist’ use of this entity, it is unsurprising that the Internet has now become the focus of legislative attention. However, what does this mean for one of the most fundamental of human rights, the right to freedom of expression? This article will analyse the concepts of incitement, glorification and dissemination as they relate to the Internet, and evaluate their place within the broader framework of the right to freedom of expression. Consequently, ‘context’, the quantifiable circulation of content, and other relevant issues are evaluated through the prism of the Internet. Similarly, the role of the ‘blogger’ is discussed as it relates to the dissemination of information, and the overarching concept of participatory democracy. For illustrative purposes, the United Kingdom's Terrorist Act 2006, and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights will be of primary interest.

scholarly journals Framing Community Sponsorship in the context of the UK’s hostile environment

2021 ◽  
pp. 026101832110238
Author(s):  
Gabriella D’avino
Keyword(s):  
Frame Analysis ◽  
Refugee Resettlement ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Parliamentary Debates ◽  
Environment Policy ◽  
Migration Management ◽  
Private Sponsorship ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

The launch of the private sponsorship scheme, Community Sponsorship (CS), allowing individuals to resettle refugees in the UK, seems to be in contrast with the government’s approach towards immigration aimed to implement the hostile environment policy. Using frame analysis, this research looks at the diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framings used by policymakers in parliamentary debates related to CS to understand how the scheme and the hostile environment coexist. The findings show how the used frames allow the government to manage refugee resettlement more as a tool of migration management rather than exclusively as a tool of international protection, and how this strategy implements the UK’s hostile environment.

scholarly journals Deportation on the Basis of Diplomatic Assurances : Permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights? : a Critical Analysis of the Judgment of the ECtHR in Abu Qatada v the United Kingdom (2012) and Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bernadette Sangmeister
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Case Basis

<p>Inspired by the recently concluded litigation seeking to deport the radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada from the UK to Jordan, this paper aims at examining the 2012 judgment of the ECtHR by focusing on the question under which circumstances a deportation with diplomatic assurances (DWA) may be permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights. Relevant background information will be provided concerning the interplay of the use of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as concerning the particular circumstances that led to the ECtHR’s ruling in Abu Qatada. In the following analysis of the judgment, the focus will be on the interplay of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights with special regard to art 3 and art 6 of the Convention. Finally, the impact of this judgment on the future jurisprudence and the DWA policy will be shown. In the light of this judgment, it will be argued that the counter terrorism means of deporting a non-national terrorist suspect with diplomatic assurances seems to be compatible with the Convention if the diplomatic assurances given guarantee a sufficient protection of the human rights of the transferee, which due to the uncertain effects of the DWA policy, still has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.</p>

The Heart of Know Your Customer Requirements: The Discriminatory Effect of AML and CTF Policies in Times of Counter-Terrorism in the UK

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-235
Author(s):  
Michele Sciurba
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Security ◽  
Customer Requirements ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Risk Profiling ◽  
Terrorism Financing ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Discriminatory Effect

The duties of loyalty and confidentiality are central to the relationship between banks and their customers. In the wake of national and international security concerns, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) legislation have put banks at risk for excessive sanctions and legal liability for failing to comply with these laws. In response, banks have adopted de-risking policies that undermine the banks’ confidential relationship to their customers. In order to limit their own risk, banks act pre-emptively by denying accounts to customers or terminate existing accounts of legitimate customers based on risk profiles. Consequently, banks become de facto extensions of law enforcement. This provides incentives to banks to discriminate against entire groups of customers and to dispense with less profitable customers in the name of mitigating risk. The risk-profiling policies of banks raise civic and human rights concerns, which extend beyond the private relationship between the bank and its customer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document