Counter Terrorism policies of the UK after the 11th September attacks

By

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1

Parliamentary sovereignty1

Attacks in New York2

Counter terrorism policies2

Threat to security3

Research Aim4

Hypothesis4

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY5

CHAPTER 3: PROJECT PLAN7

CHAPTER 4: TIME FRAME8

REFERENCES9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The research is going to be based on secondary research to understand and critically examine the UK counter terrorism policy. A number of literature will be reviewed to better understand the policies, and their relationship to events after the 9/11 attacks. It is important to keep in mind that the UK is well known for its constitution and laws enforcing freedom and rights, promoting diversity and freewill (Makarychev, A. S., & Orttung, R. W. 2006, Pp. 56). Analyses of the British constitution traditionalists emphasize the central role played by parliamentary sovereignty.

Parliamentary sovereignty

According to Dicey, Victorian jurist whose work virtually dominated the field throughout the last century, and whose influence continues to date, the notion of parliamentary sovereignty implies that the Parliament has "the right to make and unmake any law whatsoever. English law does not recognize any person or institution or a right of veto on legislation from the parliament (Chaulia, S. 2011, Pp. 22). In this perspective, the only limit legislative power of Parliament is political, not legal; hence there is no possibility of judicial review of legislation. Therefore, no standard is legally immunized against parliamentary action, nothing is sacred. Of course, the United Kingdom is not a despotic state in which fundamental freedoms of expression, association, religion, and assembly are non-existent. However, under traditional constitutional vision, this results only the choice made ??by the legislature not to repeal these freedoms - even if that choice is no doubt, influenced by a combination of practical and normative; respectively, by political imperatives and respect for human rights (Clunan, A. L., Lavoy, P. R., & Martin, S. B. 2008, Pp. 32).

Attacks in New York

The terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London have meant that many states have tightened their laws to combat terrorism clearly. Since terrorist attacks claim many victims, even massive property damage, the process not only demands the prosecution and punishment but has been perpetrated (Frey, B. S. 2004, Pp. 55). In particular, the prevention of attacks is now the top priority of laws to fight terrorism. The special focus on terrorism prevention has a special effect, that government intervention is by penal means shifting ever further into the apron of deed to eliminate any and all risks, considering that the criminal law has reached its functional limits (Hor, M. Y., Ramraj, V. V., & Roach, K. 2005, Pp. 42). One of the key issues in combating terrorism is to deal with terror suspects, i.e., potentially dangerous offenders. The question arise that in what way may the law be engaged in the movement and restricting of suspected terrorists, without breach human rights. This is permitted only with traditional repressive means or by means of preventive measures which can also be used to promote freedom in a manner consistent with human rights without restriction (Kaldor, ...