Terrorism
Brief outline of the issue of terrorism, and why individual countries need to respond
The word terrorism is derived from the French word terrorisme, and has been used frequently since the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. Despite its frequent use, Terrorism is generally used to refer to the committing of criminal acts by organised groups, designed to provoke fear in the general public or a group of people in order to achieve political objectives. [1]
The key features of terrorism are violence, the use of civilian targets, a political or religious objective, and the group will usually claim responsibility. The largest and most well known terrorist group is Al Qaeda, responsible for the 2001 attacks on New York.
Terrorism has a historical backdrop, but modern weapons allow small terrorist “cells” to do great damage with just a small number of participants.
The most notable examples of modern terrorism were the 9/11 attacks on the world trade centre, the first and second Bali bombings, the 2004 attacks in Madrid and the London train bombings.
These catastrophic events brought modern terrorism to the forefront of western politicians minds, and highlighted the need for individual countries to respond to terrorism through public education and the creating of legislation to deal with terrorists.
Terrorism is fast becoming a global problem, and international bodies do not have the capacity to deal with it. Therefore, the responsibility lies with individual countries to assess appropriate ways of responding whilst considering the unique needs of their people.
Compare and contrast the response of the Australian government and one other country’s government to this issue.
The response of the Australian government to the issue of terrorism is similar in nature to that of the United Kingdom.
Unlike London, Australia has not experienced a terrorist attack within its borders.
Before 2001, Australia had very limited laws in place relating to terrorism. Since then, 26 different pieces of legislation have been put into place, and the government has spent more than 5 billion on counter-terrorism and security.[2]
A key step in Australia’s response to terrorism was The ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2003, which gave ASIO more questioning and detaining powers. Specific pieces of Border security, aviation and maritime legislation were also created.[3]
The most important piece of legislation relating to terrorism is the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005, which creates mechanisms for the government to list different security organizations, creates preventative detention, modernises sedition laws and allows for control orders.
The UK legislation does allow for control orders, but clear procedural safeguards exist. The person affected by the control order is entitled to a full hearing in which the court hears evidence as to whether reasonable grounds exist and if each specific control orders are necessary.
Many new law and amendments were made in the area of telecommunications,[4] with John Howard stating, “In the difficult fight against the new menace of international terrorism, there is nothing more crucial than timely and accurate intelligence.”[5]
This idea also led to the creation of law that make it easier for law protection Authorities to collect information relating to terrorist attacks.[6]
At the time of the London bombings, The Terrorism act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was already in place to deal with terrorism. The more recent Prevention of Terrorism act 2005 replaces section 4 of this act.[7] The main feature is; like Australia’s most recent anti-terrorism act, that it gives the home secretary power to make control orders on suspected terrorists.
The contrast between UK terrorism laws and Australia’s is the United Kingdom Human rights act. This act ensures that other terrorism laws are evaluated by clear standards that protect individual rights and ensure that a proper balancing process is ensured[8]. This also means that the prevention of terrorism act and any subsequent counter-terrorism legislation is subject to great judicial review and can be declared incompatible with the Human rights Act. Australia has no Bill of rights or equivalent documents.
Another difference is the “preventative detention” that Australia’s legislation holds. ASIO already has the increased powers that the UK ‘detention without charge’ allowed. Therefore the purpose of Australia’s preventative detention is more to lessen the chance of an attack-taking place.
Public advertising campaigns are utilised by both countries. Australia launched the “Alert but not Alarmed” campaign in 2001, and Britain promoted the “That person is you” posters and radio ads.
The http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au contains similar information to the Terrorism information at the British governments website. http://www.londonprepared.gov.uk/antiterrorism/index.htm. They feature current security warnings, public notices and general information about terrorism laws.
The National security website includes information about the different government departments that play a role in responding to terrorism, including the National counter terrorism committee that was established on the 24th October 2002.. The role of the NTCT is to “contribute to the security of the Australian community through coordination of a nation-wide cooperative framework to counter terrorism and its consequences.” [9]Representatives from many departments including the Australia federal police, ASIO and EMA meet twice a year.
The response of the Australian and United kingdom governments to terrorism is similar in nature, but does contain some differences in the details of the legislation.
evaluate the effectiveness of Australia’s domestic legal response to the global challenge of terrorism, and analyse the impact of this response on human rights in Australia.
In the past five years, Australia has introduced 26 new pieces of legislation to combat terrorism. The vast majority of these laws are effective in preventing terrorism, but human rights groups and legal experts are concerned that terrorism is being used to justify human rights abuses. This is most especially evident in the Anti-terrorism Act 2005, and the Australian security intelligence organization Amendment (terrorism) Act 2003.
The key piece of Australia’s domestic legal response to the global challenge of terrorism is The Anti Terrorism Act 2005. The laws will help prevent terrorism, but questions have been raised at whether it is worth the negative impact they will have on human rights.
The first concern is found in schedule one, with it now being possible to officially list a terrorist organization. This act broadens the law against being a member of an organization to when the leader of an organization praises a terrorist act; every single person who is a member of that group is a criminal. This makes it easier to identify and prosecute members of terrorist organizations, but this could lead to breaches of the right to freedom of opinion and expression found in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of human rights (UNDHR), and is against the principle of each person being responsible for his own actions and not being punished for a crime that somebody else commits.
The Act makes it a crime to give money to somebody and be reckless about whether that money goes to a terrorist organization. Michael Walton points out that under this law, an Australian donating to an overseas charity could be guilty of this offence if they do not inquire to where the money will end up. Therefore this law is not effective because it is disproportionate to its aim. This law would be much more effective if it required mens rea.[10]
A control order is a specific restriction imposed by upon a person by a court that restricts where they can go, do or even who they can communicate with. A person does not have to be charged with a crime to have one of these imposed, as long as the court is satisfied that an order would substantially assist in preventing a terrorist attack. John North, President of the law council of Australia said that these laws do not do not respect the separation of powers[11]. He also said that judicial power receives a fair procedure, which does not occur in relation to control orders. These laws threaten freedom of movement, religion and association by restricting the actions of innocent people.
Also included in schedule four is preventative detention. The purpose of this is to hold a person (again, without charging them) that they suspect is planning to engage in an imminent terrorist act for 48 hours. During this time the person is not allowed to tell others where they are, and the police and ASIO cannot question them during this time. Proposed state legislation means that this time period could be extended to two weeks- a huge infringement on freedom from arbitrary detention. This law would be effective with dealing with terrorism as it provides an avenue to detain people suspected of an imminent terrorist attack.
Amendments to sedition laws are also included in the Anti-terrorism act 2005. It seeks to criminalize incitement to violence against religious, racial, or political groups. An article in the human rights defender points out that while prohibiting incitement to violence against religious groups sends a vital normative message to society, presenting as a counter-terrorism law stigmatises group-based violence as terrorism, when is conceptually different. It also states, “collapsing these categories can only reinforce the stereotyping of certain ethnicities or religions as terrorists”. Sedition laws could therefore be classed as ineffective as they are not appropriate for dealing with the issue of terrorism.
The effectiveness of the ASIO legislation act 2003 has been called into question as it is gives ASIO more power but not more resources. The numbers of Australia’s key domestic intelligence agency has been downsized over the past
15 years. From 1988 to 1998, its numbers were slashed by a third from about 800 to 535. [12]
It now has only 587 full-time staff to monitor a country of 20 million gives ASIO the power to detain and interrogate people as young as 16 if it believes they have information on terrorist activities[13]. ASIO is also able to seek warrants to detain people for up to a week and question them in three eight-hour blocks. Amnesty international said “National security was invoked to justify the erosion of human rights safeguards in…laws on anti terrorism measures”
Australia’s domestic legal response is generally effective and it reflects community standards, but its effectiveness would be increased by better resource efficiency. The governments response does not balance the needs of the individual over society, which can be seen by the individual human rights abuses or the lack of safeguards preventing them.
Evaluate the effectiveness of international law in addressing this issue. 500 words.
Evaluate the effectiveness of international law in addressing this issue. 500 words.
“Effective international action against terrorism requires a strong cooperation at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels” [14]
Australia is a signatory nation to 11 of the 12 international instruments dealing with terrorism. [15]
International law has proved effective at providing a guideline for Australia’s domestic legal response to terrorism. Most of Australia’s domestic laws were introduced in order to implement international treaties. An example of this is the Crimes (Aviation) act 1991, which implemented three different treaties.[16]
The 2001 Attacks on New York highlighted the need for Australia to sign two treaties. The first of these was the international convention for the suppression of Terrorist bombings (1887), which made it a universal offence to intentionally use explosive devises against a public place with intent to cause death or serious injury or cause major economic loss. This Convention was implemented under the Criminal code amendment (suppression of Terrorist bombings) Act 2002.
The International convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism (1999) requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract all financing of terrorists, and requires states to hold those who finance terrorists accountable. It also provides for the freezing of assets and funds of terrorists.
This treaty was implemented under the suppression of the Financing of terrorism act 2002.
These examples show that international law can be effective in creating a framework for a domestic response, and can regulate policies between different countries on the issue of global terrorism.
For a law to be effective, it must reflect community standards. The key to the effectiveness of international law is that the international community must have similar standards. Success in this area can be demonstrated by the different countries that have signed the various counter-terrorism treaties. The sustaining of positive diplomatic relations between countries is an effective motivation for adhering to a treaty.
The following quote shows why international law can be effective as a counter-terrorism measure:
“The best defense of our Security lies in the spread of our values. But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognizes their universality. If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules.” [17]
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Another measure of the effectiveness of an international law is if is resource efficient. The war in Afghanistan (specifically Australia’s involvement) is an example of the effectiveness of coordinated international action.[18] Soldiers of Australia’s special air service regiment assisted soldiers from many different nations in defeat of the Taliban and the strong Al-Qaeda presence. It is much more effective for countries to create allies when fighting terrorism.
It is important that a law effectively balances the rights of society and the individual. The nature of the United Nations is that it concentrates more on the good of society as a whole than individual people. The impact of anti-terrorism laws on human rights is outlined in the previous section of this report.
The effectiveness of international law in dealing with global terrorism is greatly limited by State sovereignty. Treaties hold no power unless they are incorporated into domestic legislation.
There is an International court of Justice that could make rulings on breaches of these treaties, but participation in the ICJ is strictly voluntary. Even if a country did agree to accept the rulings of the ICJ, the lack of an international police force means that the court has no real power to enforce its rulings.
Michael Atteya
[1] Some information taken from Hot topics: legal issues in plain languages issue 42 2003.”What is terrorism?”
[2] “Terror Australis: The debate to date” by Garth Nettheim in Human rights defender
[3] The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 ;The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003; The Border Security Legislation Amendment Act 2002
[4] The Surveillance Devices Act 2004; The Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Act 2002;
[5] Quote taken from a transcript of the Prime ministers address to the nation on the 20th March 2003, at the announcement of Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq,
[6] The ASIO legislation Amendment act 2003; The ASIO legislation Amendment (terrorism) Act 2003;
[7] facts taken from http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page70.html
[8] Idea taken from Andrew Lynch in the Article “Don’t lie back and think of England: comparisons on the process and substance of counter-terrorism laws” Found in the Human rights defender special edition, Published by the Australian human rights centre: The university of New South Wales.
[10] “The Anti-Terrorism bill (no.2) 2005” by Micheal Walton Found in the Human rights defender special edition, Published by the Australian human rights centre: The university of New South Wales.
[11] Issues in society: Human rights. Volume 227 Editor Dustin Healey.
[12] “What ASIO needs: Better resources, not more power” by Christopher Michaelsen
[13] “Amnesty slams Australia’s human rights record, the age, 26th may 2004
[14] Advancing the national interest: Australia’s foreign and trade policy white paper
[15] A little information taken from http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/23256.htm
[16] Convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft (Tokyo, 1963); Convention for the suppression of Unlawful seizure of aircraft (The Hauge, 1970; Convention for the suppression of Unlawful acts against the safety of Civil Aviation (Sabotage).
[17] Original source for quote was not found in this brochure for the International criminal law networks conference on Effective counter-terrorism and the rule of international law.
[18] “Advancing the national interest: Australia’s foreign and trade policy white paper” found at http://www.dfat.gov.au/ani/chapter_3.html accessed on the 14th of March at 5:30 pm.
Michael Atteya
No comments:
Post a Comment