The Role of the Courts in Imposing Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: Normative Duality and Legal Realism

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Stuart Macdonald
• 关键词：TPIMs ; Human rights ; Liberty ; Security ; Legal realism ; Normative duality
• 刊名：Criminal Law and Philosophy
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：June 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：9
• 期：2
• 页码：265-283
• 全文大小：316 KB
• 参考文献：Anderson, D. (2012). Control Orders in 2011: Final Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. London: The Stationery Office.
  Bonner, D. (2007). Executive Measures, Terrorism and National Security: Have the Rules of the Game Changed? Aldershot: Ashgate.
  Clayton, R. (2004). Judicial Deference and “Democratic Dialogue- the Legitimacy of Judicial Intervention under the Human Rights Act 1998. Public Law. Spring, 33-7.
  Dennis, I. (2012). Security, Risk and Preventive Orders. In G. R. Sullivan & I. Dennis (Eds.), Seeking Security: Pre-Empting the Commission of Criminal Harms (pp. 169-91). Oxford: Hart.
  Dyzenhaus, D. (2006). The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.View Article
  Edley Jr., C. (1991). The Governance Crisis, Legal Theory, and Political Ideology. Duke Law Journal. 1991, 561-06.View Article
  Fairall, P. & Lacey, W. (2007). Preventative Detention and Control Orders Under Federal Law: The Case for a Bill of Rights. Melbourne University Law Review. 31, 1072-098.
  Fenwick, H. & Phillipson, G. (2011). Covert Derogations and Judicial Deference: Redefining Liberty and Due Process Rights in Counterterrorism Law and Beyond. McGill Law Journal. 56, 863-18.View Article
  Frank, J. (1931). Are Judges Human? Part Two: As Through a Class Darkly. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 80, 233-67.View Article
  Gearty, C. (2007). Rethinking Civil Liberties in a Counter-Terrorism World. European Human Rights Law Review. 2, 111-19.
  Griffith, J. A. G. (1979). The Political Constitution. Modern Law Review. 42, 1-1.View Article
  Halpin, A. (1997). Rights and Law?–?em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">Analysis and Theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  Halpin, A. (2006). Ideology and Law. Journal of Political Ideologies. 11, 153-68.View Article
  Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  Hawkins, K. (1992). The Use of Legal Discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp11-6). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  Hickman, T. R. (2005). Constitutional Dialogue, Constitutional Theories and the Human Rights Act 1998. Public Law. Summer, 306-35.
  Home Office. (2011). Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers: Review Findings and Recommendations. Cm 8004.
  House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. (2011). Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. Nineteenth Report of Session 2010-12. HL Paper 198.
  Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2005). Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Tenth Report of Session 2004-05. HC 334.
  Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2008). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Ninth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2008. Tenth Report of Session 2007-08. HC 356.
  Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2010). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Sixteenth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010. Ninth Report of Session 2009-10. HC 395.
  Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2011). Legislative Scrutiny: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill (Second Report). Twentieth Report of Session 2010-12. HC 1571.
  Kavanagh, A. (2009a). Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  Kavanagh, A. (2009b). Constitutional Review, the Courts, and Democratic Scepticism. Current Legal Problems. 62, 102-35View Article
  Klug, F. (2001). The Human Rights Act -a “Third Way-or “Third Wave-Bill of Rights. European Human Rights Law Review. 4, 361-72.
  Leiter, B. (1997). Rethinking Legal Realism: Toward a Naturalized Jurisprudence. Texas Law Review. 76, 267-15.
  Leiter, B. (2003). American Legal Realism. In W. Edmundson & M. Golding (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (pp. 50-6). Oxford: Blackwell.
  Leiter, B. (2007). Naturalizing Jurisprudence: Essays on American Legal Realism and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.View Article
  Lustick, I. S. (2006). Trapped in the War on Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  Lynch, A. (2008). Thomas v Mowbray -Australia’s “War on Terror-Reaches the High Court. Melbourne University Law Review. 32, 1182-211.
  Middleton, B. (2011). Rebalancing, Reviewing or Rebranding the Treatment of Terrorist Suspects: the Counter-Terrorism Review. Journal of Criminal Law. 75, 225-48.View Article
  Miles, T. J. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). The New Legal Realism. The University of Chicago Law Review. 75, 831-51.
  Nicol, D. (2006). Law and Politics After the Human Rights Act. Public Law. Winter, 722-51.
  Posner, E. A. & Vermeule, A. (2007). Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Ramraj, V. V. (2005). Terrorism, Risk Perception and Judicial Review. In V. V. Ramraj, M. Hor & K. Roach (Eds.), Global Anti-Terrorism Law and P
• 作者单位：Stuart Macdonald (1)
  
  1. School of Law, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
  
• 刊物主题：Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History; Philosophy of Law; Criminal Law; Ethics; Philosophy;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1871-9805

文摘

This article argues that the courts, not the Home Secretary, should be empowered to issue Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs). It explains that at the heart of the debate are three questions: whether measures like TPIMs should be viewed primarily from the perspective of security or liberty; how we should conceive the executive and the courts; and the empirical question of how these two arms of government answer these questions. The non-mechanistic nature of legal reasoning means that legal reasons may be constructed to fit one’s normative viewpoint on each of the first two questions. Importantly, however, the case law on judicial scrutiny of control orders consistently demonstrates that the courts themselves regard TPIMs as being primarily a restriction on liberty, which require a fair hearing before an independent court. Whilst this does provide some protection of individual rights, the nature of law as an unfinished practice means that for stable protection of individual rights judicial independence must be promoted and nurtured in both the legal and political realms. The failure of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 to vest the power to issue TPIMs in the courts thus represents a missed opportunity to secure political endorsement of enhanced legal protection of individual liberty in cases involving national security.