The thesis deals with the history of terrorism and counter-terrorism legislation, focussing on the legislation in the UK, Spain, Germany and France, in the last 30 years, and analysing its... Show moreThe thesis deals with the history of terrorism and counter-terrorism legislation, focussing on the legislation in the UK, Spain, Germany and France, in the last 30 years, and analysing its compatibility with national and European human rights standards. Show less
In a time of terrorist attacks and other crises, governments are faced with the question how to protect the population and the national security. Many states tend to use instruments and take... Show moreIn a time of terrorist attacks and other crises, governments are faced with the question how to protect the population and the national security. Many states tend to use instruments and take measures that infringe upon human rights and individual freedoms in order to protect national security. At the same time, UN Security Council resolutions stress that the 'fight against tarrorism' should take place within the borders set by the rule of law, by international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law. Next to that, international human rights contain a certain 'positive obligation' for states to adequately protect national security and the right to life of the population against terrorist attacks. Therefore, there is a tense and also complicated relation between human rights and national security. The question arises whether there is a way to secure that human rights and national security are compatible entities. This study analyses the relevant articles from human rights treaties and the jurisprudence of international monitoring organs (European Court of Human Rights/UN Human Rights Committee) in order to find out whether international law leaves room for states to limit or even derogate human rights in states of emergency or other situations that threaten national security. The study shows that international law indeed does leave some room, but only limited. In very serious crises that amount to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, states may derogate from the ordinary level of human right protection, but even during such serious crisis situations there is no 'carte blanche' for states to take any measures they deem necessary. Certain human rights are given absolute protection, even in crisis situations, and emergency measures that interfere with non-absolute human rights should pass a test of strict necessity and proportionality. In this field new norms and concepts have been developed during the last decades. It is, however, clear that the international monitoring of human rights protection during states of emergency and other severe crises needs improvement. Show less
