US & UK Human Rights While Countering Terrorism Essay

Introduction

The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (9/11) that took place in New York and Washington made the world nations determine their strategies in protecting the human rights and freedoms and develop their specific approaches to addressing the threat of terrorism in the world. However, the problem is in the fact that the declared ‘war on terror’ provoked further challenges associated with the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms because the methods used by such countries as the United States and the United Kingdom in order to address the problem of terrorism and protect citizens were rather controversial. The threat of terror and the further legal reactions of the nations to the problem were considered as challenging, and it is necessary to examine differences and similarities associated with the promotion of human rights in the United States and the United Kingdom and the nations’ legal response to the problem.

Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom chose the path of countering terrorism since the events of 9/11, and both the nations faced the challenges connected with promoting and protecting human rights in the context of restricted liberties and questionable security procedures. Nevertheless, the responding actions of the authorities in these two countries to the necessity of protecting human rights and to further barriers are characterised by differences and similarities. The reason is that both the United States and the United Kingdom were oriented to addressing the threat of terrorism, but the authorities selected different approaches to solving the issue when the United Kingdom focused on legalism, and the United States focused on concrete measures. This paper will discuss strategies used by the United States and the United Kingdom to respond to the issue of human rights protection in the post-9/11 era and analyse differences and similarities in these two nations’ approaches.

The US Approach to Countering Terrorism and Response to the Human Rights Protection Issue

In order to counter terrorism after 9/11, the United States chose to focus on active measures and on direct steps that could be effective to prevent the nation from the other terror attacks in the future. In spite of the fact that the United States did not establish a range of laws and legal policies in order to address the problem, their response with the Patriot Act of 2001 was important to protect citizens and democracy in the country. The statements of the Patriot Act were discussed by the authors as effective to address the risk of terrorist attacks because of the changes in the immigration laws and in the surveillance and search principles. However, this response to the problem was ‘mild’ only from the legislative perspective, and it was actively criticised by the public and researchers because of the observed violation of human rights and freedoms. It was often stated by the researchers that the American approach “was dominated by an aggressive assertion of executive power and by conduct that was supported by dubious clams of legality”. Professor Kent Roach also notes that the Americans “on both the Right and Left worried about how the Patriot Act would affect their privacy, while far more nasty things happened through execution action”⁷. From this point, the execution action promoted by the US authorities affected the nation and their rights significantly because not only the right for privacy was violated but also other important freedoms were constrained. The criminal prosecutions associated with new principles in investigation and surveillance were oriented to protecting the citizens’ right for life, but the proposed active strategies and measures were oriented not only on terrorists as international enemies but also on the Americans. Therefore, the accentuated authorities’ responsibility in relation to the citizens of the United States resulted in illegal surveillance and the public’s lack of reliance on the criminal justice system in the country because of the obvious violation of such their rights and freedoms as the rights for privacy and fair trial, for instance.

In this context, non-Americans became the most vulnerable part of the population living or travelling in the United States. The case of Guantanamo Bay demonstrated that the detention without any trial became the reality for not only the United States but also for the world community. Furthermore, secret detention or preventive detention and illegal investigation became widely supported activities among the authorities. From this point, the public had many reasons to become focused on illegality of these approaches and on the problem of violating the human rights. As a result, the researchers and specialists in the sphere of human rights protection initiated the active debates on the topic during which they stated that while attempting to protect the freedom and life of the Americans, the US authorities concentrated on approaches that could be discussed as inhuman. The specialists in the sphere of human rights noted that if the policies violate human rights, they should be discussed as “indefensible even if they are legal and even they do make Americans safer”. Much attention was paid to the fact that the US authorities almost legalised the discrimination against the citizens who belonged to the cultures other than the American one. Thus, the provision of the expanded powers to the police and investigation agencies in the United States was the first step toward violating the rights of non-Americans and restricting the citizens’ freedoms.

It was important to respond to the public that needed the answer to the question of why the citizens’ privacy and right for the fair trial without illegal detention was violated through the principles reflected in the Patriot Act of 2001, and then in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The reaction of the United States’ authorities to these debates and provocative claims was rather predictable because they did not chose to focus on revising the secret detention policies, to resolve the problem of compensation for victims, or to define the practice of torture appropriately. In the context, during the decade after 9/11, the United States’ approach to addressing the threat of terror was evolving, but the main focus was still on guaranteeing the security of the nation by all means. In addition, while discussing the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms in the United States after 9/11, it is important to pay attention to the fact that the main emphasis was on restricting the possibilities for immigrants to cause instability in the country. Therefore, the main challenge was to guarantee security of borders and the nation. The other challenge was to discuss whether there is a border between the illegal activities and defended shocking activities such as targeted killings in the context of absent legalism in comparison with the United Kingdom’s policies. The problem was in the fact that both types of activities provoked discussions of human rights violations. The US authorities also admitted the fact that in spite of the challenging impact of such activities as prevention, investigation, and detention on human rights, there were no other effective measures to protect human rights and to guarantee freedoms for the US citizens.

The UK View on Countering Terrorism and Response to the Challenges of Human Rights Protection

The correlation between the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the approaches used by the United Kingdom to counter terrorism is one of the most actively discussed questions in the modern society. The articles of the ECHR list the basic human rights that are intentionally protected by the European governments and by the international agencies. These important principles were taken into account when the UK authorities developed the approach to addressing the threat of terror in the country. The UK unique reaction to the threat of terrorism after 9/11 was discussed in terms of legalism, when the definition of terrorism was properly formulated, laws and policies were proposed and established, and the role of the judicial power was enhanced. Prof. Roach notes that “if an overriding theme of the American response to 9/11 is a frequent reliance on extra-legalism and executive measures, the overriding theme of the British response is a commitment to a legislative war on terrorism” that was “prepared to impose robust limits and derogations on rights normally enjoyed in the nonterrorist context”. In this context, the United Kingdom began to act as the authoritarian state that focused on legal restrictions in many spheres in order to have the opportunity to avoid rising terrorism in the country.

However, it is also important to pay attention to the fact that although the UK authorities became concentrated on minimising the threat of terror and finding the information about potential terrorists, they also tried not to influence the lives of citizens negatively. In this context, Professor Clive Walker is inclined to state that the UK authorities’ actions regarding the development of the strong legal system to address the problem of terrorism were rather effective, even while discussing them from the point of human rights protection. In this case, the security of the public became more accentuated than the citizens’ liberties, and definite limits for the legal activities were agreed. Still, the focus on secrecy did not mean the use of domestic surveillance as evidence. However, the growth in surveillance, changes in the speech regulations and immigration laws were introduced, and security became associated with human rights and protection of citizens.

In spite of the fact that civil liberties of citizens in the United Kingdom are often discussed by researchers as restricted, it is important to assume that the authorities adequately responded to the problem in terms of the legal base for counter-terrorist policies. Nevertheless, the researchers still focus on different points that are usually discussed as controversial in case of the UK authorities’ approaches to resolving the problem of violating the human rights of persons that need to be protected by the laws and legal policies adopted in the country. One group of researchers agrees that in spite of the positive effects of establishing different anti-terrorism strategies on the rate of preventing terror in the country, it is impossible to use those methods and policies that can affect the life of the citizens in the United Kingdom because any changes in the surveillance law lead to changes in the people’s perceptions of their freedoms and liberties. In this case, if the public is not satisfied with the authorities’ policy regarding the protection of human rights, it is important to speak about the problem that is more significant than the case of the human rights protection in the concrete country.

The other observed problem in the United Kingdom can be discussed as directly associated with the approaches selected by the UK authorities in order to solve the issue that was the result of the public rises against the newly adopted policies and anti-terrorism laws. Thus, it is important to pay attention to the fact that that the problem was in the idea promoted by the public activities that there were no effective measures to address the issue of violating human rights through violating the citizens’ privacy and conducting improper criminal investigations. In this context, the problem of the human rights violation was perceived by the public majority as impossible to be resolved effectively. From this point, discussing the problematic case, Fenwick supports the idea that the UK authorities faced the challenge of developing the rights-abridging practices and focused on responding to them with the known legal approaches. Although no adequate responses to the issue of human rights violation were proposed, it is was important to develop new strategies for coping with the controversial question. That is why, the UK authorities chose to focus on the advantages of the priority approach according to which the benefits of emphasising the importance of security over the human rights were stressed on and actively discussed by the specialists in the field.

The Analysis of Similarities and Differences in the US and UK Responses to the Challenges

While comparing the US and UK responses to the challenges associated with the authorities’ questionable strategies for countering terrorism and further significant negative consequences for the protection of human rights and promotion of fundamental freedoms, it is necessary to state that one the problem’s cause was the absence of a definition of terrorism that could be adopted by all the nations. The United States and the United Kingdom chose to discuss terrorism differently, while using definitions that are narrower or broader than the definition used prior to September of 2001. As a result, the authorities’ further actions in these countries were determined by the scope of the definition adopted in their country. Therefore, the impact on the human rights protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms was different, as well as the further response to the public’s declarations about the observed violation of human rights and liberties.

One important point should be accentuated in this case. If legalism in the United Kingdom was perceived as the cause for more authoritarian actions and violating the issue of human rights protection in the country, the direct activities of the United States were actually more dramatic for solving the problem of protecting the rights of citizens addressed by the issues of detention and practice of tortures. In this context, the legal base of the United Kingdom was more effective to address the serious consequences of the counter-terrorism actions for human rights and freedoms than the strategies adopted in the United States. The United Kingdom responded to the challenges associated with the protection of human rights in the context of counter-terrorism policies while concentrating on the accuracy of used procedures and practices, including surveillance, administrative detention, or treatment of suspected persons. It was important for the UK authorities to prove the effectiveness of their actions in the context of ECHR because of using the broad definition of terrorism that was followed widely in the European countries. As a result, the countries’ responses to the problem of human rights protection and promotion of fundamental liberties were different only in terms of formulations used by the authorities to justify their anti-terrorism practices and strategies. If the UK authorities were more persistent in providing the legal base for agreed limits on human rights violations in the case, the overall result can be discussed as similar for the United States and the United Kingdom.

Human rights of citizens in both countries were significantly violated because of the new policies and programmes, according to which individual British and Americans lose their right to privacy for the sake of the freedom of the whole nation. The US and UK authorities’ basic responses to the observed signs of the human rights movement were rather similar. Today, both the United States and the United Kingdom have the features of the surveillance society, thus, the reactions of the authorities to the human rights debates are often analogous. The proponents of the idea that these reactions are adequate and compatible with the principles of the ECHR point at the difference between the idea of rights and liberties. Researchers suggest that there are differences between human rights and civil liberties, that is why, there can be situations when civil liberties of citizens can be reduced because of the necessity to protect their human rights. As a result, it is possible to speak about the reaction that does not oppose the basic principles presented in the Convention on Human Rights.

Researchers determine two main approaches to discuss the problem of the relationship between the anti-terrorism strategies and humans rights protection. These approaches are the priority perspective and the balancing approach. While countering terrorism and developing the strategic war on terror, the United States and the United Kingdom faced the problem of recognising certain human rights as being more significant than others. In this context, the national security was declared as more important than privacy or freedoms of the citizens. The nations chose to determine priorities related to human rights and liberties in the situation when it was necessary to use the balancing approach and to affect the human rights indirectly. However, there are proponents of both approaches among the legal authorities, researchers, and practitioners. Those persons, who focus on the idea of promoting the human security as the priority, support their position while stating that it is important to focus on “preserving a society in which rights and freedoms can be exercised”. The supporters of the balancing approach note that it is important to discuss legal aspects of the counter-terrorism policies in the context of moral questions associated with the idea of human rights. In this case, it is possible to rely on the effective results of the balancing approach when the ‘war on terror’ can be realised by those means that are not related to the issue of human rights.

Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom made only few steps toward balancing the counter-terrorism policies and human rights and liberties. If it is possible to indirectly respond to the problem of violating the privacy rights in the United Kingdom while accentuating the idea that the security of citizens is more significant than their definite rights, the authorities of the United States also need to choose the direct way associated with using or not certain procedures that can restrict the human rights. However, the expected results of discussing the human rights problem by the US and UK authorities are closely connected with the focus on the balancing approach as the most efficient choice in the context of the constant ‘war on terror’ that affects not only enemies but also citizens of the United States and the United Kingdom.

Conclusion

In spite of the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom declared the ‘war on terror’ after the dramatic events in September of 2001, the methods, techniques, and strategies used by the authorities in these countries were rather different. If the United States chose to act directly in order to prevent terror and developed a range of execution measures, the United Kingdom chose to struggle with the threat of war while proposing effective legal acts and policies. However, although the strategies were different, the results were rather similar because these actions led to violating the human rights and restricting fundamental freedoms. The authorities in both countries faced the necessity to address the problem of the public’s dissatisfaction that was associated with the issues of detention, surveillance, illegal trials, speech regulation, administrative detention, changed immigration laws, and violation of the human privacy. The first reaction of the US and UK authorities to the problem of human rights protection and promotion of fundamental liberties was the attempt to prove the idea that security is the higher priority than privacy while discussing the question of the human rights.

In this context, the United States focused on the idea that the main goal of the Americans is to contribute to the protection of the state from the threat of terrorism by means of their privacy. The United Kingdom chose the path of pointing at the compatibility of the country’s laws with the principles in the Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the authorities in both countries were oriented to proving the idea that the protection of human rights means security of citizens in the context of the problematic international and domestic situations. From this perspective, the approaches used by the authorities in the United States and the United Kingdom to complete the counter-terrorism activities were rather different, but their reactions to the further human rights debates were similar because the US and UK authorities only start their path to the balancing approach in contrast to the previously chosen and proved priority approach.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, s 1.

Human Rights Act 1998, s 2.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, art 2, 8.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004, s 4.

The USA PATRIOT Act 2001, s 2.

Secondary Sources

Ashworth A, Human Rights, Serious Crime and Criminal Procedure (Sweet & Maxwell 2002) 18.

Bingham T, The Rule of Law (Allen Lane 2010) 56, 89.

Bronitt S, Gani M and Hufnagel S, Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force (Hart Publishing 2012) 6.

Chomsky N, 9/11 (Seven Stories Press 2001) 6.

Cole D and Dempsey J, Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security (The New York Press 2002) 81.

Danner M, ‘After September 11: Our State of Exception’ Web.

Delmas-Marty M, ‘The Paradigm of the War on Crime: Legitimating Inhumane Treatment?’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 584, 586.

Dershowitz A, Why Terrorism Works (Yale University Press 2002) 12.

Dickson B, ‘Law Versus Terrorism: Can Law Win?’ (2005) 1 European Human Rights Law Review 12.

Dworkin R, Principles for a New Political Debate: Is Democracy Possible Here? (Princeton 2006) 28.

‘The threat to patriotism’ (The New York Review of Books, 2002). Web.

Elliott M, ‘The ‘War on Terror’, UK Style: The Detention and Deportation of Suspected Terrorists’ (2010) 8 International Journal of Constitutional Law 133.

Ewing K, Bonfire of the Liberties: New Labour, Human Rights and the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press 2010) 57.

Fenwick H, ‘The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response to 11 September?’ (2002).

Foot R, ‘The United Nations, Counter Terrorism, and Human Rights: Institutional Adaptation and Embedded Ideas’ (2007).

Friedman D, ‘Torture and the Common Law’ (2006) 2 European Human Rights Law Review 181.

Gearty C, ‘The Superpatriotic Fervour of the Moment’ (2008) 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 185.

Golder B and Williams G,‘What is ‘‘terrorism’’? Problems of legal definition’, (2004). Web.

Goold Band Lazarus L, Security and Human Rights (Hart Publishing 2007) 22.

Hoffman T, ‘Human Rights and Terrorism’, (2004) 26 Human Rights Quarterly 29.

Howell B, ‘Seven weeks: The making of the USA Patriot Act’ (2004) 72 George Washington Law Review 1145.

Ip J, ‘The Supreme Court and House of Lords in the War on Terror: Inter Arma Silent Leges?’ (2010) 19 Michigan State Journal of International Law 2.

Kavanagh A, ‘Constitutionalism, Counter-Terrorism and the Courts: Changes in the British Constitutional Landscape’ (2011) 9 International Journal of Constitutional Law 173.

Masferrer A and Walker C, Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law: Crossing Legal Boundaries in Defence of the State (Edward Elgar Publishing 2013) 12.

Mayer J, ‘The Battle for a Country’s Soul’ (2008). Web.

Moran J, ‘Generating More Heat than Light? Debates on Civil Liberties in the UK’ (2007) 1 Policing 81.

Murray C, ‘The Ripple Effect: Guantanamo Bay in the United Kingdom’s Courts’ (2010) 1 Pace International Law Review 16.

Oliverio A, ‘US vs European Approaches to Terrorism: Size Really Does Matter’ (2008) 2 Policing 453.

Peters A, ‘Surveillance Without Borders? The Unlawfulness of the NSA-Panopticon: Part I and II’ (Blog of the European Society of International Law, 2013). Web.

Posner R, Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (Oxford University Press 2006) 4.

Primoratz I, Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues (Palgrave Macmillan 2005) 24.

Roach K, The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism (Cambridge University Press 2011) 161.

Ruddock P, ‘A new framework – counter-terrorism and the rule of law’ (2004) 16 The Sydney Papers 117.

Sands P, Lawless World – America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules (Penguin 2006) 12.

Scharf M, ‘International Law and the Torture Memos’, (2009) 42 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 322.

Thomas P, ‘Emergency and antiterrorist powers’, (2003) 26 Fordham International Law Journal 1193.

Walker C, ‘Keeping Control of Terrorists without Losing Control of Constitutionalism’ (2007) 59 Stanford Law Review 1395.

‘Terrorism and Criminal Justice: Past, Present and Future’ (2004) 1 Criminal Law Review 312.

“The Threat of Terrorism and the Fate of Control Orders’ (2010) 2 Public Law 5.

Zedner L, ‘Terrorism, the Ticking bomb and Criminal Justice Values’ (2008) 73 Criminal Justice Matters 18.

Wilson A, Human Rights in the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press 2001) 309.