Legal and Political Responses to Terrorism: Comparing Democracies and Hybrid Regimes

Abstract

State responses to terrorism have fostered growing concern that measures taken in the name of security disproportionately compromise rights and freedoms, including through prolonged states of emergency. This chapter explores the legal and political responses of governments in France, Tunisia, Turkey, and Russia, which vary in the extent to which they were democratic or autocratic at the time of the specific terrorist attacks examined. Comparing these democracies and hybrid-turned-authoritarian regimes, the analysis generates two hypotheses: (i) that governments’ responses to terrorist attacks may be similar across regime types in terms of the letter of the laws used to react to these events and (ii) that the ways governments actually deploy the law to respond to terrorism differ by regime type (or certain sub-types), particularly in terms of whether national security responses by the executive branch are more heavily checked by legislative and judicial powers.

The statements and analysis expressed are solely those of the author. Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the US government.