An examination of the debates regarding whether judicial review is an effective and appropriate way to regulate counter-terrorism measures.

Is judicial review an effective and appropriate way to regulate counter-terrorism measures? Some argue that the judiciary is ill-equipped to examine such measures, for instance because they lack the expertise of the institutions which bring them about under exigent conditions. Others claim that subjecting counter-terrorism measures to judicial review is crucial for maintaining a jurisdiction's principles of constitutionalism. This volume brings together voices from all sides of the debate from a broad range of jurisdictions, from North America, Europe and Australasia. It does not attempt to 'resolve' the argument but rather to explore it in all its dimensions. The debates are essentially concerned with fundamental questions of organising and making accountable the exercise of power in a particularly challenging environment. The book is necessary reading for all those concerned with counter-terrorism, but also with broader public law, constitutional law and administrative law principles.

This book provides a systematic overview of counter-terrorism laws in twenty-two jurisdictions representing the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Australia.

Counter-terrorism is now a permanent and sprawling part of the legislative and operational apparatus of the state, yet little is known about the law and practice of how it is reviewed, how effective the review mechanisms are, what impact they have or how they interact with one another. This book addresses that gap in knowledge by presenting the first comprehensive, critical analysis of counter-terrorism review in the United Kingdom, informed by exclusive interviews with policy makers, politicians, practitioners and civil society.

Using a theoretical and comparative perspective, Aileen Kavanagh argues that protecting rights in a constitutional democracy is a collaborative enterprise between all three branches of government: the Executive, legislature, and courts. With examples from multiple jurisdictions, this book documents the dynamics of collaborative constitutionalism.

The Harvard Law Review, June 2015, is offered in a digital edition. Contents include: • Article, “Active Avoidance: The Modern Supreme Court and Legal Change,” by Neal Kumar Katyal and Thomas P. Schmidt • Article, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech,” by Genevieve Lakier • Book Review, “Crown and Constitution,” by Tara Helfman • Note, “Causation in Environmental Law: Lessons from Toxic Torts” In addition, the issue features extensive student commentary on Recent Cases and policy positions, including such subjects as: corporate board of directors' duties in mergers under the Revlon doctrine; the propriety of a Delaware corporation's bylaws designating a non-Delaware exclusive forum; availability of habeas corpus review for sentencing error as to 'career offender' enhancement; whether remand orders can be vacated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3); whether housing providers can delay review of reasonable accommodations under fair housing law by requesting extraneous information; and, as to immigration law, analysis of the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel endorsing President Obama's Executive Order on deferred action for parental accountability. Finally, the issue features summaries of Recent Publications, as well as a detailed and cumulative Index for all eight issues of Volume 128. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2300 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is June 2015, the eighth and final issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). This quality digital edition from Quid Pro Books features active Contents, linked notes, active URLs in notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.

The purpose of this book is to honour the influential and wide-ranging work of Professor Clive Walker. It explores Professor Walker's influence from three perspectives. Firstly, it provides a historical reflection upon the development of the law and policy in relation to counter-terrorism and miscarriages of justice since the 1970s. This historical perspective, which is often overlooked, is particularly timely 17 years after 9/11 as trends become clearer and historical perspective even more valuable. So too with miscarriages of justice: while there was considerable public and political scrutiny following high-profile miscarriages such as the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and others, in the early 1990s, today there is much less scrutiny, despite significant concern relating to issues such as legal aid and access to justice increasing the potential (if not likelihood) for miscarriages to occur. By including a critical historical perspective, this book enables us to learn lessons from the past and to minimise contemporary risks of miscarriages of justice. Secondly, this book provides a critical analysis of the law and policy as it stands today, and its future trajectory. Applying Walker's theoretical and analytical contributions to the field, the authors focus on pressing contemporary concerns, identifying lacunae where relevant, as well as the possible, probable and preferable future trends. Finally, the book celebrates and recognises the significant contributions by Walker, with each chapter built around one or more of Walker's key works.

Counter-terrorism law and policy has been prominent and widespread in the years following 9/11, touching on many areas of everyday life from policing and border control to financial transactions and internet governance. The European Union is a major actor in contemporary counter-terrorism, including through its development of counter-terrorism laws for application within the Union. This book undertakes a multi-disciplinary and empirically informed analysis of the impact, legitimacy and effectiveness of EU counter-terrorism. Taking into account legal, societal, operational and democratic perspectives, this collection connects theoretical and practical perspectives to produce an interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder study of how we might measure and understand the impact, legitimacy and effectiveness of EU counter-terrorism. Bringing together a select group of experts in the field, particular emphasis is placed on understanding the practical experience of implementing and assessing these measures gathered from and with end users, including law-makers, policy-makers, security services, industry partners and civil society. This edited collection will be of great relevance to scholars and policy makers with an interest in counter-terrorism law, EU law and security studies.

There are many challenges that national and supranational judges have to face when fulfilling their roles as guardians of constitutionalism and human rights. This book brings together academics and judges from different jurisdictions in an endeavour to uncover the intricacies of the judicial function. The contributors discuss several points that each represent contemporary challenges to judging: analysis of judicial balancing of conflicting considerations; the nature of courts’ legitimacy and its alleged dependence on public support; the role of judges in upholding constitutional values in the times of transition to democracy, surveillance and the fight against terrorism; and the role of international judges in guaranteeing globally recognized fundamental rights and freedoms. This book will be of interest to human rights scholars focusing on the issues of judicial oversight, as well as constitutional law scholars interested in comparative perspectives on the role of judges in different contexts. It will also be useful to national constitutional court judges, and law clerks aiming to familiarise themselves with judicial practices within other jurisdictions.

Both New Zealand and the United Kingdom challenge assumptions about how a bill of rights functions. Their parliamentary bills of rights constrain judicial review and also look to parliament to play a rights-protecting role. This arises from the requirement to inform parliament if legislative bills are not compatible with rights. But are these bills of rights operating in this proactive manner? Are governments encountering significantly stronger pressures to ensure legislation complies with rights? Are these bills of rights resulting in more reasoned deliberations in parliament about the justification of legislation from a rights perspective? Through extensive interviews with public officials and analysis of parliamentary debates where questions of compliance with rights arise (prisoner voting, parole and sentencing policy, counter-terrorism legislation, and same-sex marriage), this book argues that a serious gap exists between the promise of these bills of rights and the institutional variables that influence how these parliaments function.