Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
EU Counter-Terrorist Policies and Fundamental RightsThe Case of Individual Sanctions$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Christina Eckes

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780199573769

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573769.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 25 August 2019

Limits of Fundamental Rights in the Face of Terrorism

Limits of Fundamental Rights in the Face of Terrorism

Chapter:
(p.185) 4 Limits of Fundamental Rights in the Face of Terrorism
Source:
EU Counter-Terrorist Policies and Fundamental Rights
Author(s):

Christina Eckes

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573769.003.0004

This chapter considers to what extent terrorism could justify exceptional restrictions on ordinary principles and rights. It seeks to identify how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and a selection of national courts assess whether restrictions on fundamental rights can be justified in the fight against terrorism. Particular attention is paid to the non-disclosure of information to those affected by counter-terrorist measures. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 addresses the duty of the state to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. Section 2 examines to what extent terrorism is an emergency situation justifying a derogation from well-established human rights standards. Section 3 examines the case-law of the ECtHR in which the Court considered whether and to what extent security considerations can justify restricting Convention rights. Section 4 turns to the UK House of Lords. In the UK, counter-terrorist measures, such as the indefinite detention of foreigners, control orders, and the admissibility of third party torture evidence have been challenged as to their compatibility with the 1998 Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The House of Lords has given several principled rulings on what cannot be compromised even under the threat of terrible atrocities. Section 5 analyzes the case-law of the US courts and of the Supreme Court of Israel. The US courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled in a series of cases on whether the detainees at Guantanamo Bay can rely on the right of habeas corpus. Finally, the US Supreme Court of Israel has more often been asked to rule on the legality of counter-terrorist measures. In a ruling on ‘preventive strikes’ or ‘targeted killings’, the Court considered whether the political question doctrine might apply to counterterrorist policies.

Keywords:   Human Rights, European Convention, counter-terrorism, House of Lords, US courts, Israel

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .