Project approach
We will examine:
• previous efforts to control political violence and ask whether current
developments are completely novel or whether they have their parallels in
history
• the extent to which existing legal categories are (in)apt to address
the phenomenon of political violence initiated by globalised non-State actors
• the manner in which the new anti-terrorism measures have been portrayed
as legitimate and appropriate responses to exceptional circumstances justifying
limitations on accepted standards of human rights and due process
• the genealogy and likely efficacy of the measures that have been introduced,
their necessity in the light of existing laws and powers, as well as their
potential impact on other areas of law such as criminal law in general, or
immigration and refugee law.
Finally, using expertise from social psychology, we will explore how public attitudes in relation to law and security and collective emotional responses are influenced by the threat of terrorism and public discussion of that threat. We will seek to determine, using empirical methodologies, whether there is evidence that, as politicians claim, the community will continue to tolerate new, extraordinary, coercive and preventive measures such as those embodied in the new anti-terrorism laws. We will seek to explain why the community may (or may not) tolerate such measures.
Aims:
The project aims at redressing the dearth of analysis integrating legal and social-scientific perspectives on recent anti-terrorism laws. It will enhance understanding of current reactions to terrorism and inform policy analysis and public debate over appropriate future responses.
Focus is on:
• the challenges these developments pose to accepted legal categories;
• debates around exceptionalism as a justification for new laws;
• the unintended and collateral consequences of new laws;
• public attitudes to new security measures.