Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
Recently the issue of terrorism has raised major security concerns throughout the world. This concern has increased the need to have effective counter terrorism measures in place. However, the fight against terrorism has led to controversy and friction between the measures taken by the state counter terrorism committee to prevent terrorism, and the views and goals of human right organisations to prevent human rights infractions. In this study, we seek to find out the implication of terrorism on human rights and the impact of terrorism on global security.
The discussion begins with an introduction to the general issue of terrorism and its implications for human rights. The question as to whether or not human rights are being violated by current counter terrorism measures will be critically analysed throughout this study. Finally, some attention will be given to address counter terrorism measures that are implemented to solve the national and international security crises. In the process, there are human right issues that arise from the investigations, detention, and prosecution of the terrorism suspects.
Introduction and Problem Statement
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11 in New York City the issue of terrorism has become one of the major concerns in many countries. Cases of terrorism have increased significantly since 9/11; this is a fact that poses a major challenge to human rights as it raises issues for victims and perpetrators alike. Therefore, there is a need to undertake a critical analysis of the relationship between terrorism and human rights.
Terrorism can be considered an affront to humanity, because it goes against the basic human rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlined by the United Nations. This study seeks to give a detailed analysis on the issue of terrorism and the differing views on how it should be dealt with by the governments that encounter it. In order to deal with terrorist activities, many countries have imposed strict measures on any individuals suspected to be involved in terrorism.
These harsh measures of punishment raise further issues, namely, do individuals found to be involved in terrorist activities forgo their fundamental human rights? Human rights activists and agencies argue that terrorists still have the right to be treated in the same manner as other members of humanity (High Commissioner for Human Rights 3). However, this latter view is often deemed impractical and naïve by anti terrorist agencies, who tend to view human rights abuses as collateral damage, one of the unfortunate yet unavoidable outcomes of the War on Terror (Goodin, 2006; Held, 2008; Luban, 2003; Pojman, 2006).
Goodin (2006) argued that terrorism is best understood not as a psychopathology or as an ideology but, rather, as a distinctive political tactic, the essence of which lies in its attempt to frighten people for political advantage (p. 31). Indeed, both parties involved in terrorism those who commit terrorist acts and those who punish terrorist acts are deeply invested in their roles, for the very fact that terrorism has a political, typically nationalistic or religious component that imbues the acts themselves, regardless of how horrific or inhuman they may be, with legitimacy and meaning beyond ordinary crime, or crime of a non-political nature. Many terrorists and anti-terrorists for the most part consider their work inspired by a higher ideal, be it religious or moral, and this belief typically infuses their actions with a sense of righteousness and purpose.
In this case, a major question we need to ask is whether or not both governments as well as human rights organisations have effectively reacted in an appropriate way to the reality of terrorism. That is, the study seeks to ascertain whether or not governments involved in anti terrorist activities have adopted an approach which does not violate the rights of both the victims and the perpetrators.
Human rights organisations have the responsibility to ensure that the governments and other counter terrorism agencies respect the human rights and the law in their fight against terrorism. The human rights organisations also have an important role to play in the definition of terrorism at the international level. Human rights organisations also participate in proposing the best way in which the issue of terrorism should be handled (International Council on Human Rights Policy 2011: p.10).
There is a need for human rights advocates to have a clear and understandable stand on the issue of terrorism in order to come up with the most effective way to deal with terrorism in the modern world. Gani and Mathew (2008: p.142) observed that there is a need to have a modern approach towards the war against terrorism. For instance, terrorists have changed their tactics and approaches to execute terrorist acts and campaigns.
Therefore, a need exists to have more advanced security checks at airports and seaports to prevent exchange of dangerous weapons between countries and to thwart the movement of terrorist groups and actors between countries. It is also necessary to facilitate the harmonisation of international legal frameworks in order to improve efficiency when dealing with terror cases that involve cross border issues. The modern approach in turn has implications for human rights, particularly when advanced security measures often curtail the movement of individuals between countries.
As already noted, the issue of terrorism has critical human rights implications to both the victims and the perpetrators. The measures taken in an effort to deal with terrorism have raised critical human rights issues in many countries. For instance, new means of controlling the movement of people from one place to another causes human right issues, because some of the means applied are seen to violate their movement rights (Australian Human Rights Commission 2011: par 4).
Additionally, modern communication technologies have gone a long way toward the erosion of borders and barriers between countries, allowing increased interaction between different parts of the world. This makes it easier to detect any terrorist plans before they are executed. This has presented a major improvement in the war against terror. Meanwhile, several bodies are advocating for use of democratic strategies in the fight against terrorism (Weinberg, 2008: p.80).
This move has resulted in decreased threats from terrorism, both at the international and the national levels (Antonio and Sánchez, 2009: p.36). However, these strategic methods have raised concerns over the violation of basic human rights, both through the act, and through the process of mitigating the act itself. For instance, terrorism cases may rise when excessive emphasis is put on democratic strategies in dealing with terror.
Human rights legislation gained international attention following the Second World War and the fall of the Nazis. The concept of human rights in the world of politics dates back to 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was created (Zalman, 2011: par 1). This declaration covered both individual and collective human rights, and to this day it iterates the importance of observing the issues of human rights in the fight against terrorism.
The architects of the UDHR adopted by the United Nations in 1948 responded to the bold erasure of human rights practiced by Hitler, Stalin and other fascist regimes during the Second World War. In composing the UDHR, the delegates created a document that stated the unequivocal, universal rights of all humans regardless of race, color, sex, or national or social origin (Pojman, 2006: p. 75; Zalman, 2011). The impetus for the UDHR therefore was the atrocious human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Hitlers Nazi vision.
As Pojman (2006) explains, the common denominator uniting the delegates was their outrage at Hitlers ideas and actions and their determination to sound a clear message opposing them. Their sentiments took on a universal form. Generalising suggested that the purpose of the UDHR was to protect all human beings from oppression, torture, exploitation, and enslavement (p. 76). Human rights have evolved since that time to include humanitarian intervention in cases where flagrant human rights abuses occur (Held, 2008; Pojman, 2006).
While the United Nations clarified human rights globally with the UDHR, a grey area developed between the universal rights outlined therein and the actual practice of protecting human rights within sovereign states, with this grey area growing much larger and much more complex since the end of the Second World War. As Held (2008) explains, one can conclude that respect for human rights became part of the requirements recognised in international law. Although remaining in much greater uncertainty than the norms for self defense, standards concerning intervention were developed to prevent the massive violations of human rights that occur in genocide and ethnic cleansing (p. 39). Regional development of human rights legislation also occurred in Europe, the Americas and Africa.
Where international law is concerned, human rights trump the rights of sovereign states. It has become commonplace for that the international system may lawfully intervene in situations of cataclysmic civil strife and other massive violations of human rights, with or without the consent of the government of the place where the violations are occurring (Franck, cited in Held, 2008: p. 39). Since 9/11 however, a definite weakening of the respect for international law, and by extension, the universality of human rights, has occurred in response to the perceived threat of terrorism. The weakening of the UDHRs power was fuelled largely, as Held (2008) posits, by the efforts of the Bush administration following the destruction of the Twin Towers in 2001.
As Held (2008) notes, despite the insularity and resistance to international cooperation by certain elements in the United States, international law had generally been deemed worthy of considerable respect by most administrations until that of George W. Bush (p. 34). In essence, the Bush administration separated itself and the United States from the confines of the UDHR in order to conduct the War on Terror.
As Franck (cited in Held, 2008) argues, the foreign policy of the United States in regards to the War on Terror is an approach that classifies international law as a disposable tool of diplomacy, with no greater claim that any other policy or value preference (p. 34). Interestingly, several scholars including Held (2008) point to the fact that the United States appears to have taken it upon itself to combat global terrorism singlehandedly, without the authorisation and power of international law, a move which in recent years has proven detrimental not only to human rights in general, but also to the economy and the international reputation of the United States in particular.
As Held (2008) notes, international law already condemns terrorism. The United States cannot defeat terrorism alone. It requires the cooperation of other states, [as their] cooperation will assure that the terrorists are increasingly marginalized (p.34).
As mentioned earlier, there exist various forms of terrorism. Different authors classify terrorism based on varying objectives in an attempt to understand the issue clearly. The most common categories include religious terrorism, narcoterrorism, and state sponsored terrorism. In religious terrorism, terrorists of a given religion attack a large number of people from a different religion whom they consider enemies (Savitch H, 2008 p.267).
Some of the religious terror groups include Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas. Narcoterrorism is a kind of terrorism that involves drugs. Typically, narcoterrorism involves the efforts of drug lords, cartels, or drug traffickers to manipulate the policies of their government through violence, threats, intimidation, or other criminal acts (White J, 2011 p.96). Narcoterrorists also actively thwart the efforts of law enforcement officials and the meting out of justice against their enterprises through the systematic use of intimidation, the threat of violence, or actual violence. An example is the wave of narcoterrorism in Mexico.
Though their aims may be different, drug cartel violence and political terrorism share many similarities, in that each conducts illegal activities and employs extreme violence or the threat of extreme violence, including kidnappings and assassinations, to achieve their ends (Kan, 2011: p. 37. Narcoterrorists also openly defy laws, remain exceptionally adaptable, innovative and agile, and threaten global security (Kan, 2011: p. 37).
Lockinger categorises terrorism according to the players who are involved, the means and methods used, motives, as well as the geographical range (Schmid, 2011: p.173). In terms of geographical range, there can be either domestic or international terrorism (Schmid, 2011: p.173). Domestic terrorism is the kind of terrorism wherein terrorist activities are conducted by the people from within their own country.
This is opposed to international terrorism where the perpetrators may be from a foreign country and act outside the borders of their own country. Domestic terrorism can be more difficult to discover and prosecute, as it occurs within the confines of a sovereign nation. In terms of the methods used, terrorism can be classified as suicide terrorism, Cyber terrorism, bio-terrorism, nuclear terrorism, and chemical terrorism (Schmid, 2011: p.173).
Suicide terrorism or suicide missions under the auspices of terrorist activities are particularly difficult measures to counter. Bloom (2007) argues that suicide bombers and suicide missions can be deemed as rational acts from the perspective of both the organisation be it Al Qaeda or the Tamil Tigers and the individual suicide bomber, who typically have an internal covenant or understanding that promotes the status of the suicide bomber.
For counter terrorism officials however, the rationality fails, as it remains very difficult for officials to understand and predict these suicide missions given that they appear wholly irrational in a human context. Bloom (2007) instead provides three theories as to why suicide missions exist and why they are so effective: first, suicide missions work when all other terrorist acts or martial tactics fail; second, suicide missions minimise the competition between rival terrorist factions, and thirdly and most importantly, from a human rights point of view, when the rationale of the terrorist organisation condones the killing of civilians as in the case of Al Qaeda suicide missions will proliferate.
This speaks to a basic difference that the study will uncover in terms of the human rights essentially, the difference in perspective on human rights and the value for human life evidenced by terrorist groups, counter terrorist organisations, and human rights organisations. Terrorist tactics such as suicide bombing indicate an essential difference in the perception of actors toward the value of human life and in turn, the perception of human rights. Fundamentally, terrorist groups that employ suicide missions for example will likely never develop a commitment to human rights, and the counter terrorist agencies who must deal with suicide bombers operate from this understanding as they conduct anti terrorist activities.
From the perspective of human rights, both parties involved in terrorism those who use violence to further political or religious ends and those who use violence to suppress their efforts create massive human rights violations regardless of the righteousness or validity of their cause. As Held (2008) notes, in many cases the human rights abuses caused by those who seek to prevent terrorism or block the aims of terrorists are much more substantial.
This marks one of the key points of this study and one of the key questions that the research seeks to explore where human rights is concerned, which side causes more damage to the concept and maintenance of human rights, the terrorists themselves, or those charged with fighting the terrorists? Scholars such as Held (2008) argue convincingly that it is the latter:
In the two wars that Russia has fought to deny the Chechens independence&Russian forces have killed many thousands of civilians, including children, and turned more than half the population into refugees. Chechen terrorism has, in contrast, killed hundreds of civilians. In refusing to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and refusing for several years after 2001 to negotiate with the Palestinians to bring about a viable Palestinian state, Israel killed thousands of civilians, while Palestinian terrorists killed hundreds of Israeli civilians&Of course, religious fanatics with unjustifiable aims cannot use violence justifiably, but groups with justifiable aims may not be more to blame in using violence than are those who wage war against them (p. 57).
However, Helds (2008) example brings up an often ignored but no less crucial question for the study to consider: who decides what is a justifiable aim? In the minds of the religious fanatics for example, the eradication of the infidel is a justifiable aim, sanctioned by Allah, an aim that many have sacrificed their lives to attain. From the perspective of the human rights organisations, no political aim that involves human rights abuses and the murder of innocents can be justified.
Similarly, just war theory, defined by Walzer (2009) as any form of aggressive military action made justifiable and applicable by certain cases and not in others, was originally meant to be an alternative to Christian pacifism (p. 42). In recent decades however, many clerics, journalists, and professors&have invented a wholly different interpretation and use, making the theory more and more stringent, particularly with regard to civilian deaths (Walzer, 2009: p. 42). Therefore, the legitimate use of violence to further a political aim the aforementioned quintessential definition of terrorism remains stubbornly open to multiple interpretations depending upon the context of the actors.
For Luban (2003), the War on Terrorism creates a new action for governmental involvement, one that effectively transcends law and dramatically broadens the scope of action, because now terrorists who knew nothing about September 11 have been earmarked as enemies (p. 51). This new type of war offers much freer rein than that of law, and therein lies its appeal in the wake of 9/11 (Luban, 2003: p. 51).
In essence, once 9/11 occurred, a new model of governmental power became the norm, one that poses a serious and all-encompassing threat to human rights all over the world, a model that Luban (2003) calls the hybrid war-law approach (p. 51). When the War on Terrorism was initiated, it combined selected elements of the traditional war model with selected elements of the traditional law model to create far-reaching powers for the state to seek out and punish terrorism in any and all forms, with a greatly diminished requirement for evidence (Luban, 2003). In the traditional war model, the use of lethal force on enemy combatants is sanctioned, regardless of the personal involvement [of] the enemy (Luban, 2003: p. 51).
In the realm of war, so-called collateral damage, the unintentional killing of civilians, while considered regrettable, is nonetheless sanctioned and to a certain extent expected behaviour in a war zone. In law, police cannot bomb an apartment complex if they have intelligence that someone inside the building harbours a terrorist, whereas in war, an air force can bomb the building if it contains a military target (Luban, 2003: p. 52).
In addition, the burden of evidence and requirements of proof remain significantly less stringent in war than in law. As Luban (2003) explains, soldiers do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even proof by a preponderance of evidence, that someone is an enemy soldier before firing on him or capturing and imprisoning him; they dont need proof at all, merely plausible intelligence (p. 52). The War on Terror refashions the legitimate target into those who in the course of combat might harm us, not those who have (Luban, 2003: p. 52). This preventative strike approach to terrorism therefore can potentially impede the human rights of any and all actors deemed legitimate targets by counterterrorist agents.
Another important development in human rights caused by the War on Terror is the circumvention of certain key articles in the Geneva Convention (Luban, 2003). The U.S. government in particular has reinterpreted the Geneva Convention in a way that is designed to eliminate [the] tactical advantages afforded to the enemy combatant via the Geneva Convention, namely the right to fight back and the right to avoid punishment for active service, by utilising the traditional law model (Luban, 2003: p. 52).
International terrorist agencies and actors view international terrorism not only as a military adversary, but&as a criminal activity and criminal conspiracy wherein terrorist actors receive punishment for whatever acts of violence they commit, punishment which they would not receive in a legitimate war governed by the Geneva Convention protocols. As Luban (2003) explains, captured terrorists may be tried before military or civilian tribunals, and shooting back at Americans, including American troops, is a federal crime (p. 52).
Therefore, the amalgam of the traditional models of war and law adopted by the War on Terrorism officials since 9/11 has effectively transformed the world into a war zone and the defence of home and country (for anyone other than an American) into a crime, with obvious negative ramifications for human rights.
The promotion of universal human rights under the auspices of global governance have led to the creation of a number of articles such as the Responsibility to Protect, a new endeavour created by NGOs from all over the world (International Relations and Security Network, 2011). The Responsibility to Protect represents an international human rights and security document designed to attend to the continued failure of the international society to stop human rights abuses such as genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (International Relations and Security Network, 2011: n. pag.).
Organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Relations and Security Network have created these initiatives to speak to the reality that, especially in the case of terrorism and counter terrorism measures, formal mechanisms of global governance often fail to uphold universal minimum standards (International Relations and Security Network, 2011: n. pag.).
The goal of initiatives such as the Responsibility to Protect and other norms advance the global governance ideal that originated with the United Nations in 1948 the aim that a norm for human rights will become standardised across the world and that all states will adhere to it as they conduct counter terrorist activities and exact counter terrorist measures. The continued failure of the international community to respect basic human rights has led to the creation of civil society organisations [or CSOs] to fill gaps or put pressure upon states and formal international institutions to change their behavior (International Relations and Security Network, 2011, n.pag.).
This study seeks to examine these aforementioned conflicting issues in detail and attempt to determine the best approach to use to handle terrorist perpetrators without infringing upon their human rights. There are conflicting ideas on human rights concerning how the perpetrators should be treated from their trial through to their judgment. In other words, the study will help in understanding better the issue of terrorism and its effective mitigation.
The key issue for this study to consider therefore lies in the quality of the evidence authorities use to assess and label a person as terrorist victim or perpetrator of terrorism, and if these criteria infringe upon individuals human rights. In the case of insufficient, contradictory, or suspicious evidence, authorities must maintain the innocence of the suspected terrorist until proven definitively in a court of law.
However, as Farrell (2011) notes, this did not happen in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. As a result, since 2001, countless individuals have lost years of their lives, their reputations, their assets, their families, their peace of mind, and their most fundamental human rights as wrongly accused terrorists. These individuals form a significant body of human rights victims of the War on Terror, one that seldom receives mention.
Research Question
How are human rights affected, both by terrorism as a political act and by the policies that aim at mitigating it?
Methodology
This study will be based on the global perspective on human rights and human rights violations, in light of the war against terrorism. International data will therefore be necessary in this case to cover the terrorist activities in the Middle East, the United States and the United Kingdom. The main sources of information in this study will be a variety of literature sources that contain issues and perspectives from both human rights organisations as well as from governments counter terrorism legislations. These sources will be helpful in the provision of the necessary information which will help in understanding the issue of combating terrorism and its implication on human rights.
The paper will be an advocacy document that sets out to determine the nature of current anti-terrorism legislations and measures, and ascertain the impact these measures have had upon the human rights of both the victims of terrorism and the perpetrators of terrorism, since the 9/11 attacks. The study will be built upon research studies that have been carried out by various agencies on terrorism, counter- terrorism, policing, and human rights of both the perpetrators and the victims.
The initial data for this study will be sourced from individual country reports written by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and the Human Rights Watch (HRW), along with other human rights organisations and non-governmental agencies. Case studies drawn from these reports will also be used to develop a comprehensive analysis of terrorism as a case of political violence, and the impact of counter-terrorism on human rights.
The study will be desk-based and will primarily rely on Internet sources such as government and non-governmental reports, journals, media reports, policy documents, articles, and backgrounders, amongst other publications. Contacts in the government, academia and the civil society will also supplement information and provide additional expertise in the spheres of counter-terrorism legislation, human rights legislation, and security.
The paper will finally undergo review by the lecturers and these reviews will be included in the final paper. Specific reference will be given to international conventions such as the United Nations Charter of 1945, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984, among other crucial sources.
Several studies have been done on the implication of terrorism on human rights.
This paper seeks to identify the main contributions to this issue, after which gaps in these studies will be identified and addressed. The literature reviewed will be useful in answering the central research question that guides this study: How are human rights affected, both by terrorism as a political act and by the policies that aim at mitigating it?
After 9/11 international cases of terrorism have increased significantly. This development has posed a considerable threat to the maintenance of human rights globally, largely because the issue of terrorism raises critical human rights concerns from both perspectives. There are critical human rights concerns that affect both the victims of terrorism as well as the perpetrators of terrorism (Strossen, 2003:p.7). The argument will be divided into two separate sections, one to analyse the case of terrorism as a political act of violence with political intentions, and the second to analyse the impact of counterterrorism tactics on human rights in the current arena.
Terrorism as a Case of Political Violence
Terrorism and Politics
Political violence is a much broader category than terrorism. However, terrorism and political violence can be used interchangeably, especially when the context encompasses guerrilla warfare, national liberation movements, and strikes and demonstrations whenever they turn violent.
Terrorism in the context of political violence intends to overthrow a tyrannical regime; to redefine and realise justice and equality; to achieve independence or territorial autonomy, or to impose ones religious or doctrinal beliefs on another group. This violence can be directed towards a wide range of targets including property, political authorities and law enforcement. However, it is rarely directed towards civilians but all things considered, it has a far more negative connotation. Many terrorist acts are classified as the intentional use of violence either against civilians or civilian targets to realise political aims, draw international attention to the political cause, and recruit sympathisers to engage in the violent acts.
There are three main components of terrorism: one, the threat or the use of violence; two, a political aim such as changing the regime, changing the people in authority, or altering the current social and economic policies; and three, the targeting of civilian victims for terrorist acts. This latter component is attractive to terrorist organisations because civilians represent an easy target and tend to draw large scale attention due to their innocence (English, 2009; Held, 2008; Luban, 2003; Zalman, 2011).
While Al Qaeda represents the most recent addition to the terrorist ranks, several other terrorist organisations have been in play over the last 40 to 50 years in Europe and internationally: the provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), the ETA Basque separatist group in Spain, and the Tamil Tigers, a terrorist group from Sri Lanka.
Richard English (2009), an IRA expert and political science professor at Queens University in Belfast, Ireland, elucidates the unique political character of terrorism herein:
Terrorism involves heterogeneous violence used or threatened with a political aim; it can involve a variety of acts, targets, and actors; it possesses an important psychological dimension, producing terror or fear among a directly threatened group and also a wider implied audience in the hope of maximising political communication and achievement; it embodies the exerting and implementing of power, and the attempted redressing of power relations; it represents a subspecies of warfare, and as such it can form part of a wider campaign of violent and non-violent attempts at political leverage (p.44).
In the case of the provisional IRA, a protracted campaign of terror designed to unify Ireland and eradicate the presence of British troops lasted decades (English, 2009; Gregory, 2010). The provisional IRA or provos carried out sniper attacks, several bombings in Northern Ireland, and numerous assassinations as part of their 30-year political violence campaign. Since the 1960s, the provos terrorists have been directly responsible for the death of roughly 1,800 people (English, 2009; Gregory, 2010). The victims of the provisional IRAs terrorist campaign were mainly British officers, police, prison guards, legal officials, militants from rival factions, drug lords, informants, and over 600 civilians (English, 200
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.