Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:08:32.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

September 11, Anti-Terror Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Dirk Haubrich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The attacks on the United States of America in September 2001 have spurred a rapid implementation of new Anti-Terrorism legislation around the world. In an effort to, ostensibly, safeguard against the repetition of similar events on their own territories, many democracies have taken far-reaching legislative steps that might threaten the ideal of liberty on which their societies have traditionally been built. This article examines the laws introduced in Britain, France and Germany to establish the extent to which civil liberties in eight different categories have been curtailed. It concludes that, despite the otherwise similar characteristics of the countries studied, the legal provisions differ significantly in scope and depth, a fact that might be explained by: the different levels of threat perception; Britain's history of anti-terror legislation; and the respective power balances between judiciaries and legislatures.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2003 , pp. 3 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2003.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The author wishes to thank Craig Barker, Richard Bellamy, Michael Moran and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. The work has also benefited from several papers presented at a workshop on ‘Terrorism and the Liberal Conscience’ at All Souls College, Oxford in June 2002. Finally, thanks are owed to the convener and participants of the GSEIS seminar series at the University of Reading for the initial ideas that led to this article.

References

2 ‘Securité les réactions’, Le Nouvel Observateur, 30 10 2001, www.nouvelobs.com Google Scholar; ‘Otto-Katalog versandfertig’, DerSpiegel, 14 12 2001, www.spiegel.de. Google Scholar

3 Human Rights Watch (HRW), ‘Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy’, 2002, 〈www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/opportunismwatch.htm〉Google Scholar.

4 Hague, R., Harrop, M. and Breslin, S., Comparative Politics and Government, London, Macmillan, 1998, p. 280 Google Scholar.

5 Carlyle, A., Political Liberty, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1941 Google Scholar; Bellamy, R., Liberalism and Modern Society, London, Polity, 1994 Google Scholar; Palley, C., The United Kingdom and Human Rights, The Hamlyn Lectures 42nd series, London, Stevens, 1991 Google Scholar.

6 ‘FBI asks Yard to track down 24 suspects in Britain’, The Guardian, 19 10 2001, 〈www.guardian.co.uk〉Google ScholarPubMed.

7 ‘Mosque Leader Warns over Extremist Converts’, The Guardian, 26 12 2001, 〈www.guardian.co.uk〉Google ScholarPubMed.

8 ‘US Readies for Covert War’, CBS, 25 September 2001, 〈www.kyw.com/now/story/0,1597,310701-412,00.shtml〉.

9 ‘Organisationsbasis Hamburg’, Der Spiegel, 24 10 2001, 〈www.spiegel.de〉Google ScholarPubMed.

10 ‘Etranger, le 11 September, côté liberticide’, Le Nouvel Observateur, 15 01 2002, 〈www.nouvelobs.com〉Google Scholar; the three NGOs can be located at 〈www.rsf.fr〉; 〈www.hrw.org〉; and 〈www.fidh.org〉.

11 ‘La Riposte contre le terrorisme’, Le Nouvel Observateur, 21 01 2002, 〈www.nouvelobs.com〉Google Scholar.

12 Home Office, ‘Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill — Passage through Parliament’, 24 02 2002, 〈www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/antiterrorism/bill_through_parliament.htm〉Google Scholar.

13 Joint Committee on Human Rights (2002), ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill: Further Report’, House of Lords (2001–02) 51, House of Commons (2001-02) 420, para. 24.; Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), ‘Anti-terrorism and Security Bill 2001’, Article 103.

14 Joint Committee on Human Rights (2002), ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill: Further Report’, House of Lords (2001–02) 51, House of Commons (2001–02) 420, para. 2.

15 HMSO, ‘Anti-terrorism and Security Bill 2001’, Article 33, 〈www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm〉; Council of Europe, Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Files 12, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing and Documentation Services, 1994, p. 83 Google Scholar.

16 Deutscher Bundesrat, Entwurfeines Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus-Empfehlungen der Ausschüsse, 30 November 2001, Print Matter 920/1/01, 〈www.elektronische-demokratie.de〉.

17 Bundesgesetzblatt, Gesetz zurBekämpfungdes internationalen Terrorismus (Terrorismusbekämpfungs-gesetz), 1:3, pp. 361–95, 2002, 〈www.elektronische-demokratie.de〉Google Scholar.

18 Journal Oficiel, Loi 2001-1062 relative à la Sécurité Quotidienne, 266 (2001), p. 18215, 〈www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/frame_lois_reglt.htm'〉Google Scholar, Article 22.

19 HMSO, Article 122.

20 Bundesgesetzblatt, Article 22.

21 For a treatment of the differences in defining ‘civil liberties’ vs. the broader notion of ‘human rights’, see Ewing, K. and Gearty, C., The Struggle for Civil Liberties: Political Freedom and the Rule of Law in Britain, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 1–34 Google Scholar.

22 See nn. 15, 17, 18 above.

23 Stone, R., Civil Liberties and Human Rights, London, Blackstone, 2000, p. 378 Google Scholar.

24 ‘Handy, Internet und Telebanking im Visier’, Der Spiegel, 19 10 2001, 〈www.spiegel.de〉Google ScholarPubMed.

25 Robertson, G., Freedom, the Individual and the Law, London, Penguin, 1993, p. 418 Google Scholar.

26 ‘Rebellion over Plans for ID Card’, The Observer, 30 06 2002 Google ScholarPubMed.

27 Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), ‘Anti terrorism and Security Bill 2001’, Article 33, 〈www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm〉; Council of Europe, Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Files 12, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing and Documentation Services, 1994, p. 83 Google Scholar.

28 Robertson, G., Freedom, the Individual and the Law, p. 184 Google Scholar.

29 Fabbrini, S., ‘The Domestic Sources of European Anti-Americanism’, Government and Opposition, 37:1 (2002), pp. 3–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Shorts, E. and de Than, C., Human Rights Law in the UK, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001, p. 701 Google Scholar.

31 Bailey, S. H., Harris, D. J. and Ormerod, D. C., Civil Liberties – Cases and Materials, London, Butterworths, 2001, p. 567 Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., p. 570.

33 Joint Committee on Human Rights (2002), ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill: Further Report’, House of Lords (2001-02) 37, House of Commons (2001-02) 372, para. 30.

34 Dicey, A., An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, London, Macmillan, 1959, pp. 39–40 Google Scholar.

35 Gordon, R. and Ward, T., Judicial Review and the Human Rights Act, London, Cavendish, 2000, p. 233 Google Scholar.

36 Whitty, N., Murphy, T. and Livingstone, S., Civil Liberties Law: The Human Rights Act Era, London, Butterworths, 2001, p. 23 Google Scholar.

37 Gordon, R. and Ward, T., Judicial Review, pp. 12–13 Google Scholar.

38 Elliott, M., ‘The Demise of Parliamentary Sovereignty? The Implications for Justifying Judicial Review’, Quarterly Review, 115 (1999), pp. 119–20Google Scholar.

39 Even if the judiciary did subject legislation to detailed scrutiny the benefits to the protection of civil liberties are anything but certain. The appellate bench has generally proven to be the most illiberal branch of the democratic state, usually following the parliamentary trend of widening the scope of anti-terrorist legislation both in the interpretation of wording and the exercise of discretionary powers. See Whitty, N., Murphy, T. and Livingstone, S., Civil Liberties Law, pp. 155–7Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., p. 105.

41 See http://www.!guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,765914,00.html.

42 Conradt, D., The German Polity, New York, Longman, 1978, p. 215 Google Scholar.

43 Youngs, R., English, French and German Comparative Law, London, Cavendish, 1998, p. 92 Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., p. 4.