The War on Terror and International Human Rights: Does Europe Get It Right?

By Aronofsky, David; Cooper, Matthew | Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Fall 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The War on Terror and International Human Rights: Does Europe Get It Right?


Aronofsky, David, Cooper, Matthew, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy


I. INTRODUCTION

The global war on terror, spearheaded by the United States since September 11, 2001, has seen ongoing tensions between military, law enforcement and political expediencies on the one hand, and protection of basic international human rights law principles, including those reflected in national constitutions and statutes, on the other. Seldom has any regime ostensibly committed to rule of law as a core national value drawn more criticism outside its borders than the United States over the waging of this "war." (3) Images of Guantanamo detentions, military commissions with ambiguous jurisdictional authority, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses, extraordinary renditions, erratic U.S. court decisions, U.S. government memoranda attempting to justify torture, and a U.S. administration that openly stated its disagreement with applying international laws (human rights and otherwise) to how this war is conducted, all combine to raise doubts about whether the U.S. commitment to the rule of law is real, imagined, or somewhere in-between. (4)

In 2002, reflecting upon the September 11 tragedy just a year after its occurrence, Professor Aronofsky warned against arbitrary justice and making up our anti-terrorism laws as we go along, contrary to the American way. (5) Although the U.S. Supreme Court has, at least to a limited extent, mitigated some of the more egregious abuses of Guantanamo detainee legal rights, the Court's refusal to apply the full range of substantive and procedural legal protections characterized in both the U.S. Bill of Rights and in international human rights law treaties (modeled in no small part from the U.S. Bill of Rights) continues to treat meaningful rule of law values as undesirable annoyances. This is not to criticize or downplay the ferocious legal advocacy engaged in to date within the U.S. court system in defense of these legal protections, but instead to ask aloud here about how to make such advocacy more effective in redressing two serious ongoing problems as to the litigation of such U.S. cases: 1) the lack of viable causes of action, and 2) the insufficient opportunities for remedial redress.

With the recent change in U.S. Administration, the question of how the U.S. will (and should) approach the ongoing problems in the coming years is to date unresolved. Although the present authors make no guess as to how the U.S. will proceed, the answer of how the U.S. should proceed may well lie in Europe's well-developed human rights jurisprudence. This article will survey a number of U.S. court decisions since September 2001, followed by an examination of the legal policy problems with the Bush administration's tactics and the accompanying U.S. litigation results, and conclude with a comparative examination of the European human rights law approach. It is the position of the present authors that the U.S. would be well served to, at the very least, examine Europe's relative success in fighting the war on terror, while at the same time preserving the rule of law, and incorporate the European experiences into the U.S. system of law.

II. INTRACTABLE PROBLEMS IN U.S. LITIGATION REGARDING THE WAR ON TERROR: THE LACK OF VIABLE CAUSES OF ACTION AND MEANINGFUL REMEDIAL REDRESS

   In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used
   to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must
   accord proper deference to the political branches.... There are
   further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in
   fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are
   freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal
   liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.
   (6)

Despite protections outlined in the Bill of Rights, as well as safeguards in both international customary and treaty law, many suspected terrorists detained in the United States have been denied fundamental due process prior to, during, and after trial.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The War on Terror and International Human Rights: Does Europe Get It Right?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?