Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Brief Contents
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The United Nations Responds: Security Council Listing and Legislation
- 3 Countries That Did Not Immediately Respond
- 4 The United States Responds: Executive Power and Extra-Legalism
- 5 The United Kingdom Responds: A Legislative War on Terrorism
- 6 Australia Responds: Hyper-Legislation
- 7 Canada Responds: Border and Human Security
- 8 Conclusions
- Index
- References
6 - Australia Responds: Hyper-Legislation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Brief Contents
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The United Nations Responds: Security Council Listing and Legislation
- 3 Countries That Did Not Immediately Respond
- 4 The United States Responds: Executive Power and Extra-Legalism
- 5 The United Kingdom Responds: A Legislative War on Terrorism
- 6 Australia Responds: Hyper-Legislation
- 7 Canada Responds: Border and Human Security
- 8 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Australia provides an interesting case study of how a country with little direct experience with terrorism can get caught up in the 9/11 effect of dramatically increased counter-terrorism. Australia borrowed heavily from the British response to terrorism, even though there are significant differences in the threats of terrorism faced by the two countries. Australia's definition of terrorism and its many new terrorism offenses are largely derived from the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000. After the 2005 London bombings, Australia adopted British innovations such as control orders, preventive arrests, and laws against the advocacy of terrorism. Since the defeat of the Howard government, Australia has also borrowed some British review models by creating an independent and security-cleared monitor.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The 9/11 EffectComparative Counter-Terrorism, pp. 309 - 360Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
- 2
- Cited by