Search Results

This chapter presents an in-depth analysis of the (statutory and non-statutory) reviews that are possible in respect of two key parts of counter-terrorism: Prevent, and Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs). In addition to describing the counter-terrorism review assemblage that attaches to Prevent and TPIMs, the chapter also identifies the reviews that have been undertaken over the five-year period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018. For each of these, it includes a consideration of the standards against which these reviews evaluated the law or programme, identified by close textual analysis of the reviews themselves. This analysis shows that, in spite of the persistent reliance on review as a safeguard in counter-terrorism legislation, Parliament’s historical tendency not robustly to challenge security narratives from Government is remarkably resilient. While these mandated reviews do take place (and non-mandated or discretionary reviews seem to be less frequent), their success in evaluating the measures, engaging in reality, and showing capacity for action is questionable.

This chapter contains a characterisation of the UK as a counter-terrorist state, tracing its historical development and the processes through which counter-terrorism has become permanent in this jurisdiction. Alongside this permanence, the chapter shows how counter-terrorism pervades a wide range of fields, beyond policing and security, extending both the range of actors responsible for counter-terrorism and those subject to the state’s counter-terrorist gaze. In spite of some marginal disagreement around counter-terrorism law and policy, the chapter shows that UK politics is marked by a hegemonic consensus on the counter-terrorist state’s core propositions. Finally, the chapter shows that the counter-terrorist state is also reflected in the emergence and the stabilisation, through law, of at least some forms of counter-terrorism review, illustrating the potential for counter-terrorism review to reinforce and legitimate the counter-terrorist state.

The development and reform of smart sanctions makes them a critical element of strategic peacebuilding, specifically in their ability to restrict war and to counter terrorism. Lopez and Cortright examine the shortcomings and lessons learned from counter-terrorism efforts, in particular those led by the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED). To address the root causes of terrorism, they argue, efforts must promote good governance, economic development, and human rights—all of which are central aims of strategic peacebuilding. The authors provide recommendations for increasing regional capacities and decreasing redundancy and overlap in UN Security Council counter-terrorism efforts.

Although counter-terrorism review often works well in the United Kingdom, challenges to realising the accountability potential of counter-terrorism review persist. In large part, those challenges reflect the persistence of exceptionalist thinking within the counter-terrorist state. This chapter zooms out from the detailed accounts given in Chapters 2 and 3 to problematise counter-terrorism review from the perspective of accountability. In doing so it dwells on four persistent challenges that emerge from the analysis of counter-terrorism review: the secret state, the abundance of executive control, the limitations of Parliament, and the absence of trust. These challenges have a serious impact on counter-terrorism review but, to a large extent, this chapter argues that their resolution may be beyond the reach of the assemblage itself.

This concluding chapter argues that, notwithstanding the successes of counter-terrorism review, the counter-terrorist state is not characterised by a commitment to meaningful accountability through evaluative counter-terrorism review. It argues that meaningful accountability requires a commitment to evaluation, to the diversification of evidence, to hearing and recognising the importance of communities’ experiences of the unintended social and security impacts of counter-terrorism, and to the possibility of change. These commitments are not yet in evidence, and without them the chapter argues the counter-terrorist state struggles to establish liberal democratic legitimacy. Such a shift would require the state to recognise that counter-terrorism is now an ordinary state of affairs and that, as a result, the state can no longer appeal to ‘the exception’ in the attempt to exempt itself from our ordinary constitutional expectations when taking steps to combat terrorism. Instead, the conclusion argues, it must inculcate a culture of justification in counter-terrorism that is based not only on bare claims of necessity, but on arguments of legitimacy, legality, long- and short-term effectiveness, rights-respectfulness, and openness to challenge.

This chapter outlines the core argument of the book and the methodological approach to the research. It develops the concept of counter-terrorism review as legal, political, and policy processes that consider the application and impacts of counter-terrorism law and policy in theory as well as in practice, with a view to assessing its merits and contributing towards its improvement. It also establishes the importance of considering counter-terrorism review as a distinct phenomenon with the potential either to legitimate or to enhance accountability in the contemporary counter-terrorist state.

This chapter contributes to the debate between legal constitutionalists and political constitutionalists. It is in three parts. The first summarizes the leading UK case law on rights, liberty, and security since the Belmarsh decision. Arguing that Belmarsh already looks like an exception rather than a new beginning in public law, it outlines the illiberal nature of a range of decisions. Secondly, this case law is used to challenge the workability/desirability of David Dyzenhaus's model of rule-of-law protection in times of crisis. Thirdly, the chapter examines Parliament's recent record at scrutinizing various government claims as to what it is necessary to do in the interests of national security, focussing on the debate of the Terrorism Act 2006, and the role of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This is used to show that that a weak judicial decision that legitimates an illiberal policy is used by governments to shut down political debates, and also that Parliament is an agency through which rights can be better protected even in this most difficult area of national and international concern.

This chapter presents a thematic analysis of 24 interviews with actors we identified as undertaking, participating in, or interacting with counter-terrorism review, including former Home Secretaries, former Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, high-level political actors, representatives of regulators and complaints bodies, civil servants, lawyers, and representatives from a range of civil society organisations. The chapter considers this data across five themes: (i) the purposes of review, (ii) how those purposes are pursued in practice, (iii) the values that underpin review, (iv) how the different elements of the counter-terrorism review assemblage relate to one another, and (v) the impact of review.

Chapter Two provides a genealogy of the threat of terrorism discourse, as it has been articulated in Western European, European Community (EC) and European Union (EU) security discourses. The first section investigates the intellectual and practical origins of the threat of terrorism discourse in Western Europe between the 1970s and the events of September 11, 2001. It traces the emergence of terrorism as a transnational security problem for European governments, exploring the link between the discourse on terrorism and the creation of a transnational framework for cooperation on matters of cross-border law enforcement (Trevi); and later a holistic system of governance for the provision of internal security under the auspices of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The second section investigates the (re)emergence of the EU’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse following the events of September 11, 2001 and its subsequent evolution across three periods: the post-September 11 period; the post-Madrid period; and the post-Breivik period. The chapter identifies the ‘key texts’ that will be analysed, drawing out the main strands of the ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse that make up the focus of the empirical analysis conducted in the rest of the book.

The final chapter highlight the main contribution that this research makes to debates on EU counter-terrorism policy. The first part argues that an exploration of language, identity and the study of ‘others’ is essential if we are to develop a comprehensive understanding of the EU’s ‘fight against terrorism’. The second part considers the EU’s emerging role as a holistic security actor. The third part demonstrates how the EU is developing a particular security identity that is committed to the creation of a system of precautionary security governance. The fourth part reflects on the implications of the ‘fight against terrorism’ for ‘human rights’ in the EU area, as well as the extent to which the EU counter-terrorism response can be considered effective. The fifth part offers some discussion of future avenues for research, including some of the limitations of the interpretive approach adopted in this study. Finally, concluding remarks are offered on the significance of the EU’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse.

The introduction begins by making a case for analysing the language of EU counter-terrorism policy. It outlines the main aims of the research conducted in the book. The chapter discusses the relationship between terrorism, counter-terrorism and security before locating the analysis of the ‘fight against terrorism’ firmly within the ‘critical’ traditional of International Relations (IR). Having established the motivation for adopting a critical perspective, the chapter discusses what is meant by the notion of ‘actorness’ with specific reference to how the EU is conceptualised as a security actor for the purpose of the research conducted in this book. The chapter concludes by considering both the ‘traditional’ and ‘critical literature’ on EU counter-terrorism policy, identifying the unique contribution that the research conducted in this book will make to debates in this field of study.

This chapter outlines alternative approaches to achieving international counterterrorism policy objectives. The authors cite studies showing that law enforcement and political processes are the most effective means of bringing terrorist groups to an end. The chapter argues that countering terrorism is ultimately a political struggle, and calls for international cooperation to address the conditions conducive to violent extremism. A two-pronged approach is advocated: coordinated international police and intelligence efforts to prevent attacks, and parallel political, economic, and social measures aimed at eroding the support base for militancy and ameliorating the grievances that give rise to terrorism. These approaches are embodied in the UN Counterterrorism Strategy adopted in 2006. The UN Strategy elevates the importance of inclusive and accountable governance, peacebuilding, economic development, and human rights, in contrast to predominately military approaches to counterterrorism policy.

This chapter provides a detailed perspective on the evolution and rationale of the legal architecture supporting China’s counter-terrorism strategy as it has developed over the past two decades, including the development of China’s Counter-Terrorism Law in 2015. It argues that the legislative underpinnings of China’s counter-terrorism policy have been driven by the CCP’s perception that: (i) counter-terrorism decisions needed to be incorporated into law; (ii) relevant laws and penalties needed to be integrated into a cohesive whole; and (iii) organizations in charge of combating terrorism required a clear framework delineating their responsibilities and various powers to act. In practice, China’s counter-terrorism approach is framed by the CCP’s perception of it as, in the first instance, emanating from both Xinjiang and Islam. Thus, China has focused part of its strategy on efforts to deter or prevent ‘religious extremism’ through censorship of information, detecting terrorist financing, and greater cooperation with international partners

This chapter provides an overview of UK anti-terrorism policy. The chapter begins by tracing the historical evolution of contemporary anti-terrorism powers, before comparing the UK’s experience to that of other Western democracies. The chapter argues that the UK’s approach to anti-terrorism is distinctive because it is characterised by hasty, repetitive and continuous activity in which terrorism is approached as a distinct security problem of exceptional significance

This introduction chapter identifies the rationale for a comparative study of the counterterrorism responses of non-Western states. It argues that much of the counterterrorism literature is biased towards Western perspectives, particularly that of the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel, and tends to ignore the distinct counterterrorism approaches of non-Western states. This chapter defines what is meant by “non-Western” in this volume and identifies the drivers – historical, social, political, cultural and religious – that determine their counterterrorism response.

Despite the significant attention given in the scholarly literature to exploring the strength, scope and implications of counter-terrorism policy since 9/11, there has been no systematic analysis of China’s approach to terrorism and counter-terrorism. This is a major lacuna given China’s increasing power and influence in international affairs and the increasing incidence of terrorism in Xinjiang. This chapter provides an overview of how the book addresses this gap in the literature via four major areas of investigation: the scope and nature of terrorism in China and its connection with developments in other regions; the development of legislative measures to combat terrorism; the institutional evolution of China's counter-terrorism bureaucracy; and Beijing's counter-terrorism cooperation with international partners.

China’s counterterrorism policy in Xinjiang represents an evolving, complex, and controversial approach to managing ethno-religious tensions. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping is using a spectrum of tactics to combat the ‘three evil forces’ of ethnic separatism, religious extremism, and violent terrorism, ranging from heavy police actions against violent elements to inducements for minorities to enjoy the purported fruits of CCP rule and assimilate into Chinese society. This chapter examines three core aspects of the Xi administration’s counterterrorism policy in Xinjiang: the influence of ideological imperatives in shaping counter-terrorism policy; the “management” of religious affairs; and the use of militarized policing and surveillance.