Advertisement

Evolution of British Law on Terrorism: From Ulster to Global Terrorism (1970–2010)

  • Leandro Martínez-Peñas
  • Manuela Fernández-Rodríguez
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 14)

Abstract

This chapter considers the techniques employed by the United Kingdom as one of the most experienced Western democracies in fighting terrorism. They describe how the UK has faced terrorist threats for over half a century. These threats began with political and religious violence in Northern Ireland in the Ulster counties and thereafter segued into global jihadist terrorism. The authors describe how, in the twenty-first century, the British government has deployed legal formulas and measures that it had applied in the 1970s and 1980s to counter political violence in Northern Ireland and adjusted them to address modern challenges posed by groups linked or inspired by Al Qaeda. Exclusion orders, extended periods of detention or increasing executive powers and usurping judicial review and authority are some of the measures attempted in Britain’s contemporary counter-terrorism efforts. It is argued that extending law enforcement or executive authority denigrates individual rights and freedoms unnecessarily and ultimately have a transcendent impact beyond the purpose for which they were created.

Keywords

Terrorist Group Terrorist Activity Real Lesson Security Force British Government 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Akdeniz, Y., and C. Walker. 2003. Antiterrorism laws and data retention: War is over? Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 54(2): 159–182.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso Pascual, R. 2001. Irlanda del Norte. Una historia de guerra y la búsqueda de la paz. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez Conde, E., and H. González. 2006. Legislación antiterrorista comparada después de los atentados del 11 de septiembre y su incidencia en el ejercicio de los derechos fundamentales. ARI 7.Google Scholar
  4. Bonelli, L. 2008. ¡Ya estábamos pisando a fondo desde 1995! La sorprendente estabilidad del antiterrorismo francés antes y después del 11-S. In Las democracias occidentales frente al terrorismo global, ed. C.T. Powell and F. Reinares. Barcelona: Ariel y Real Instituto Elcano.Google Scholar
  5. Bonner, D. 2004. The United Kingdom’s response to terrorism: The impact of decisions of European judicial institutions and of the Northern Ireland Peace Process. In European Democracies against terrorism. Governmental policies and intergovernmental cooperation, ed. F. Reinares. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Bovard, J. 2004. Terrorismo y tiranía. Buenos Aires: Editorial El Ateneo.Google Scholar
  7. Bunyan, A. 1955. The political police in Britain. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burleigh, M. 2008. Sangre y rabia. Una historia cultural del terrorismo. Madrid: Taurus.Google Scholar
  9. Bustos Ramírez, J. 1986. Las funciones de la policía y la libertad y seguridad de los ciudadanos. Nuevo Foro Penal 32: 165.Google Scholar
  10. Committee on the Administration of Justice (C.A.J.). 2007. War on terror: Lessons from Northern Ireland. Belfast: Committee on the Administration of Justice.Google Scholar
  11. Cumaraswamy, P. 1998. Cuestión de los Derechos Humanos de todas las personas sometidas a cualquier forma de detención o prisión. Informe del Relator Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, Sr. Param Cumaraswamy, presentado de conformidad con la resolución 1997/23 de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos. http://www.unhchr.ch.
  12. Diplock, J. 1972. Report of the Commission to consider legal procedures to deal with terrorist activities in Northern Ireland. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Dodd, V. 2009. Metropolitan police used anti-terror laws to stop and search 58 under-10s. The Guardian, August 18. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/18/met-police-stop-search-children.
  14. Donohue, L.K. 2001. Counter-terrorist law and emergency powers in the United Kingdom, 1922–2000. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Doyle, C. H. Terrorism: Section by section analysis of the USA Patriot Act. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL31200.Google Scholar
  16. Godson, D. 2007. The real lessons of Ulster. Prospect Magazine, no. 140.Google Scholar
  17. González, H., and E. Álvarez Conde. 2006. Legislación antiterrorista comparada después de los atentados del 11 de septiembre y su incidencia en el ejercicio de los derechos fundamentales. ARI 7.Google Scholar
  18. Gregory, F. 2006. Los atentados de Londres de 7 y 21 de julio de 2005: ¿Una nueva normalidad o lo ya previsto. DT, no. 10, July.Google Scholar
  19. Gregory, F. 2008. Policía y estrategia contra el terrorismo global en el Reino Unido. In Las democracias occidentales frente al terrorismo global, ed. C.T. Powell and F. Reinares. Barcelona: Ariel y Real Instituto Elcano.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, B., and J. Morrisontaw. 2004. A strategic framework for countering terrorism. In European Democracies against terrorism. Governmental policies and intergovernmental cooperation, ed. F. Reinares. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, J.D. 2001–2002. The restoration of jury trial in Northern Ireland: Can we learn from the professional alternative? St. Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic L.J. 15 (2001).Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, J.D., K. Quinn, and T. O’Malley. 1999. The jury system in contemporary Ireland: in the shadow of a troubled past. Law and Contemporary Problems 62: 203–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, L.M. 2010. It’s time to leave the troubles behind: Northern Ireland must try paramilitary suspects by jury rather than in diplock-type. Texas International Law Journal (Texas) 45: 655–665.Google Scholar
  24. López Garrido, D. 1987. Terrorismo, política y Derecho. La legislación antiterrorista en España, Reino Unido, República Federal de Alemania, Italia y Francia. Madrid: Alianza Editoral.Google Scholar
  25. McGuiverin, B. 2008. In the face of danger: A comparative analysis of the use of emergency powers in the United States and the United Kingdom in the 20th century. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 18(1).Google Scholar
  26. Mullin, C. 1986. Error of judgement. The truth about the Birmingham bombings. London: Poolbeg.Google Scholar
  27. Noone, M.F. 2006. El Ejército Republicano Irlandés: Soldados ilegítimos. Military Review LXXXVI.Google Scholar
  28. O’Connor, M.P., and C.L. Rumman. 2003. Into the fire: How to avoid getting burned by the same mistakes made fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland. Cardozo Law Review 24: 1657.Google Scholar
  29. Portilla Contreras, G. 2005. El retorno del Derecho Penal al estado de naturaleza. Viento del Sur 83: 31–44.Google Scholar
  30. Powell, C.T., and F. Reinares. 2008. Las democracias occidentales frente al terrorismo global. Barcelona: Ariel y Real Instituto Elcano.Google Scholar
  31. Rasnic, C.D. 1996. Northern Ireland’s criminal trials without jury: The Diplock experiment. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law 5: 239–258.Google Scholar
  32. Reinares, F. (ed.). 2004. European Democracies against terrorism. Governmental policies and intergovernmental cooperation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Rodríguez-Villasante, and J.L. Prieto. ¿A que llamamos terrorismo? Introduction to Cuadernos de Estrategia 133 (‘Lucha contra el Terrorismo y Derecho Internacional’).Google Scholar
  34. Russel, J. 2007. Terrorism pre-charge detention: comparative law study. London: Liberty.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, B.L., K.R. Damphouse, and P. Roberts. 2003. Preincident indicators of terrorist incidents. The identification of behavioural, geographic and temporal patterns of preparatory conduct. Arkansas: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  36. Thorne, K. 2006. Proscription of terrorist groups in the United Kingdom. www.hdcentre.org.
  37. Torres Soriano, M.R. 2006. Violencia y acción comunicativa en el terrorismo de Al Qaeda. Política y Estrategia 96 (October–December).Google Scholar
  38. Vv. Aa. 1983. Democracia y leyes antiterroristas en Europa. Ulster, Italia, Alemania y Estado Español. Bilbao: IPES.Google Scholar
  39. Vv. Aa. 2004. Lost lives. Edinburg: Mainstream Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Vv. Aa. 2006a. The impact of U.K. anti-terror laws on freedom of expression. In ICJ panel of eminent jurists on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights. London: ICJ.Google Scholar
  41. Vv. Aa. 2006b. Replacement arrangements for the Diplock Court system. A consultation paper. Belfast: Northern Ireland Office.Google Scholar
  42. Vv. Aa. 2009. La inteligencia, factor clave en la lucha contra el terrorismo. Cuadernos de Estrategia 141, June.Google Scholar
  43. Vv. Aa. 2010. Parliamentary debates. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, C. 2007. Keeping control of terrorists without losing control of constitutionalism. Stanford Law Review 59: 1423.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, C., and Y. Akdeniz. 2003. Antiterrorism laws and data retention: War is over? Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 54(2): 159–182.Google Scholar
  46. Wintour, P. 2006. Police support Blair on terror detentions. The Guardian, November 7, London.Google Scholar
  47. Wispinski, J. The USA Patriot Act and Canada’s Antiterrorism Act: Key differences in legislative approach. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0583-e.htm.
  48. Wright Neville, D. 2008. La política del miedo: antiterrorismo y democracia australiana. In Las democracias occidentales frente al terrorismo global, ed. C.T. Powell and F. Reinares. Barcelona: Ariel y Real Instituto Elcano.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leandro Martínez-Peñas
    • 1
  • Manuela Fernández-Rodríguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y SocialesUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosVicálvaro/MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations