Democratic States’ Response to Terrorism: A Comparative Reflection on the Perceived Role of the Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights and Civil Liberties

  • Marinella Marmo
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 14)


This chapter aims to discuss and evaluate domestic judges’ activity in matters related to forms of transnational crime, such as terrorism, to offer an innovative way to approach the debate on democratic state’s response to such transnational crimes. The approach adopted in this paper is based on interviews with senior Australian judges during the years 2005–2006, in the years of the so-called global fight against terrorism. The result of these interviews is put into a broader context; in particular with views expressed by judges based in other jurisdictions and involved in cases of terrorism. This approach seeks to explore how judges perceive their role in this context and in comparison to their counterparts abroad at the peak of the fight against global terrorism. Also, the chapter explores how judges are debating these issues in different geographical areas, and whether territoriality in criminal matters remains understood as a fixed legal and judicial environment. And if not, it is noteworthy to map out judicial collaborations and links within their jurisdiction and beyond, to trace down networks, and to observe the different forms of judicial dialogue. This paper aims to pin down how judges picture their role as domestic judge in the new world order.


International Criminal Court Court Case World Order Legal Development Supreme Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ABS. 2011a. Population Clock. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved July 20, 2011.
  2. ABS. 2011b. Estimated Resident Population. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia.∼Jun+2011∼Main+Features∼Demography?OpenDocument. Retrieved July 20, 2011.
  3. AIJA. 2011. Judges and Magistrates. Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration. Retrieved July 20, 2011.
  4. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conducts. 2002. Adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity. The Hague, November 25–26, 2002. Retrieved August 10, 2006
  5. Barak, A. 2005. Purposive interpretation in Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boister, N. 2003. Transnational criminal law? European Journal of International Law 14(5): 953–976.Google Scholar
  7. Castells, M. 1998. The end of the millennium. Oxford: Blackwell Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Held, D., A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton. 1999. Global transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mack, K.M., and S.L. Roach Anleu. 2008. The National survey of Australian Judges: An overview of findings. Journal of Judicial Administration 18(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
  10. Markesinis, B. 2006. Judicial mentality: Mental disposition or outlook as a factor impeding recourse to foreign law. Centenary Lecture of the Society of Comparative Legislation. Tulane Law Review 80 (4): 1325–1375.Google Scholar
  11. Marmo, M. 2010. The role of judges in European criminal justice: Judicial harmonisation processes in Italy and England. Saarbucken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Mason, A. 1987. Future directions in Australian Law. Monash Law Review 13: 49–163.Google Scholar
  13. Moran, L. 2006. Judicial diversity and the challenge of sexuality: Some preliminary findings. Sydney Law Review 28(4): 565–598.Google Scholar
  14. Morris, M. 2004. Terrorism and unilateralism: Criminal jurisdiction and international relations. Cornell International Law Journal 36: 473–489.Google Scholar
  15. Moyser, G. 1988. Non-standardized interviewing in elite research. In Studies in qualitative methodology, vol. 1, ed. R. Burgess. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mueller, G. 2001. Transnational crime: Definitions and concepts. In Combating transnational crime, ed. P. Williams and D. Vlassis, 13–21. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  17. Murphy, S. 1999. Progress and jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The American Journal of International Law 93(1): 57–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pierce, J. 2006. Inside the Mason Court revolution: The High Court of Australia transformed. Durham: North Carolina, Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Scalia, A. 2006. International influences on national legal system, at law symposium: International influences on national legal systems, Fulbright Convention (26/01/2006) 1–40. Retrieved March 28, 2009.
  20. Scholte, J.A. 2000. Globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  21. Shapiro, M., and A. Stone Sweet. 2002. On law, politics, and judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Slaughter, A.-M. 2004. A new world order: Government networks and the disaggregated state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sparks, R., and T. Newburn. 2002. Introduction: How does crime policy travel? Criminal Justice 2(2): 107–109.Google Scholar
  24. Stedward, G. 1997. On the record: An introduction to interviewing. In Surviving the research process in politics, ed. P. Burnham, 151–165. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  25. Tate, C.N., and T. Vallinder. 1995. The global expansion of judicial power: The judicialization of politics. In The global expansion of judicial power, ed. C.N. Tate and T. Vallinder. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tribe, L. 2005. On Judicial Review. Dissent (Summer vol): 81.Google Scholar
  27. Whealy, A. 2007. The impact of terrorism related laws on judges conducting criminal trials. The Judicial Review 8(3): 353–383.Google Scholar


  1. A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department HL [2004] UKHL 56.Google Scholar
  2. Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. GOC Central Comm HCJ 3799/02 [2005].Google Scholar
  3. Hamdan v Rumsfeld (05–184) 548 US [2006].Google Scholar
  4. Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23.Google Scholar
  5. Public Committee Against Torture v. Israel, HCJ 5100/94 [1999].Google Scholar
  6. R v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 691.Google Scholar
  7. R v Thomas [2006] VSCA 165.Google Scholar
  8. Rasul v Bush (03–334) 542 US 466 [2004].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Studies in Criminal Justice, School of LawFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations