Judicial Review of the State’s Anti-Terrorism Activities: The Post 9/11 Experience and Normative Justifications for Judicial Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The years since 9/11 have seen unprecedented global efforts to combat the evil of terrorism. The legislative and especially the executive arms of many governments have been very active. Many courts have engaged in judicial activism in the sense that they have invalidated executive and even legislative action taken by the state in the name of combating terrorism. This article will examine the judicial role with respect to the state’s anti-terrorism activities. It will suggest that with some exceptions, courts in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom have been surprisingly active with respect to review of the state’s anti-terrorism activities. One exception is the Indian Supreme Court’s decision upholding anti-terrorism legislation in that country that has since been repealed. In addition to making the empirical observation about the surprising amount of judicial activism since 9/11, this article will also argue that judicial activism in reviewing state anti-terrorism activities for respect for human rights can be normatively justified. The normative justifications for judicial review include the unique role of courts in protecting human rights and unpopular minorities, frequently exaggerated claims of legislative and executive expertise in combating terrorism and the ability of courts to accommodate social interests in preventing terrorism through proportionality analysis and dialogue between courts and legislatures. Although courts should be aware of the limitations of their own institutional competence, they should not ignore the limits of legislative and executive competence in counter-terrorism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".