Abstract
Common lawyers have focused too much on rights talk and especially on constitutionally entrenched Bills of Rights in critiquing Anti-Terrorism legislation enacted by democratic common law countries since September 11, 2001. This paper illustrates the ways in which rights talk acts as a distraction from fundamental principles of legality when Anti-Terrorism laws are considered, arguing that embedded rights play three roles antithetical to sustaining governance in accordance with fundamental principles of legality: the roles of paper tiger, Trojan horse, and narcotic.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Constitutionalism |
Subtitle of host publication | An International Perspective |
Editors | A.V. Narsimha Rao |
Place of Publication | Hyderabad |
Publisher | Amicus Books |
Publication status | Published - 2008 |