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
5 - The United Kingdom Responds: A Legislative War on Terrorism
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
The experience with terrorism in Northern Ireland has been extensive, producing more deaths than 9/11, albeit over a much longer period. Although much attention has been focused on American antiterrorism efforts in the wake of 9/11, British antiterrorism laws have been much more influential in other parts of the world. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000, and, in particular, its broad definition of terrorism, have been the starting point for definitions of terrorism in Australia, Canada, Israel, Singapore, South Africa, and elsewhere. Australia has followed subsequent British developments with respect to the imposition of control orders and offenses that target speech associated with terrorism. The British influence not only projects forward from 9/11 but backward. As discussed in Chapter 3, British colonial emergency rule had a lasting impact on antiterrorism in Singapore, Malaysia, and Israel. Indeed, the roots of many practices, such as broad liability rules that attempt to prevent interference with essential services, indeterminate administrative detention, the use of secret evidence, administrative orders restricting the activities of terrorist suspects in the community, special courts, and the regulation of speech associated with terrorism, all have origins in the counter-insurgency practices of British colonial rule.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The 9/11 EffectComparative Counter-Terrorism, pp. 238 - 308Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011