Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrorism, and the responses to it, have represented during the last decade one of the most significant challenges to the protection of the fundamental rights entrenched in national constitutions and international human rights treaties. Terrorist attacks across the globe – from New York, to London, Madrid, and Bali – have produced death and destruction, undermining fundamental values of peaceful co-existence, and shattering citizens’ expectations of security. Yet, since 9/11, national governments, international organisations, and supranational institutions have responded to these threats with a panoply of counter-terrorism measures that themselves have threatened the protection of core fundamental rights. Taking stock of more than a decade of political action and legal deliberation on the balance between liberty and security, this chapter maps the interaction between terrorism laws and human rights. Consistent with the nature of this book, this chapter offers a summary of the main legal and policy instruments developed to fight global terrorism, discusses its impact on procedural and substantive fundamental rights, and considers in a comparative perspective some of the most remarkable failures and successes of jurisdictions world-wide in correcting the excesses of counter-terrorism and re-establishing respect for fundamental rights even in the struggle against terrorism. Specific aspects are analysed more fully elsewhere in this book. As the chapter makes clear, counter-terrorism measures enacted by executives and legislatureshave interacted with human rights in multiple ways. At the same time, courts have increasingly been involved in the oversight of counter-terrorism laws and policies, sometimes operating as an effective bulwark of protection against governments’ overreach. Yet, a number of challenges remain.As this chapter suggests, although the struggle against terrorism may be winding down, the interaction between counter-terrorism laws and human rights will continue to characterise constitutional law and practice for years to come. The chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 surveys the main laws and policies adopted in the fight against terrorism, distinguishing between preventive and responsive measures, and discussing their features. Section 3 evaluates the impact of counter-terrorism laws on human rights, considering both procedural and substantive provisions of national constitutions and international human rights treaties. Section 4 explains what limitations have reduced the capacity of courts to effectively protect human rights in the post-9/11 world. Section 5, instead, considers in comparative perspective a numberof courts’ successes in restoring an appropriate balance between liberty and security in the fights against terrorism. Section 6 concludes and outlines the outstanding challenges for the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".