Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review - Title page

pp iii-iii

Copyright page

pp iv-iv

Contents

pp v-vi

Contributors

pp vii-viii

Acknowledgements

pp ix-x

Introduction

pp 1-32

Part I - Judging counter-terrorism judicial review

pp 33-118

1 - Counter-terrorism judicial review as regulatory constitutionalism

pp 35-55

2 - Counter-terrorism judicial review by a traditionally weak judiciary

pp 56-74

3 - When good cases go bad: unintended consequences of rights-friendly judgments

pp 75-96

4 - The rhetoric and reality of judicial review of counter-terrorism actions: the United States experience

pp 97-118

Part II - Beyond counter-terrorism judicial review

pp 119-206

5 - Emergency law as administrative law

pp 121-141

6 - The politics of counter-terrorism judicial review: creating effective parliamentary scrutiny

pp 142-160

7 - Independent reviewers as alternative: an empirical study from Australia and the United Kingdom

pp 161-182

8 - Public inquiries as an attempt to fill accountability gaps left by judicial and legislative review

pp 183-206

Part III - Counter-terrorism judicial review in the political constitution

pp 207-280

9 - Rebalancing the unbalanced constitution: juridification and national security in the United Kingdom

pp 209-227

10 - Business as usual: deference in counter-terrorism judicial review

pp 228-250

11 - Deference and dialogue in the real-world counter-terrorism context

pp 251-280

Part IV - Internationalised counter-terrorism judicial review

pp 281-364

12 - Counter-terrorism law and judicial review: the challenge for the Court of Justice of the European Union

pp 283-301

13 - Post 9/11 UK counter-terrorism cases in the European Court of Human Rights: a ‘dialogic’ approach to rights protection or appeasement of national authorities?

pp 302-323

14 - Accountability for counter-terrorism: challenges and potential in the role of the courts

pp 324-364

Index

pp 365-376