Government responses to terrorism can conflict with the protection of human rights and the rule of law. By comprehensively looking at all aspects of counter-terrorism measures from a comparative perspective, this book identifies best practices and makes clear recommendations for the future.

The articles and essays in this volume consider the problem of international terrorism from an international legal perspective. The articles address a range of issues starting with the dilemma of how to reach agreement on what constitutes terrorism and how to encapsulate this in a legitimate definition. The essays move on to examine the varied responses to terrorism by states and international organisations. These responses range from the suppression conventions of the Cold War, which were directed at criminalising and punishing various manifestations of terrorism, to more coercive, executive-led responses. Finally, the articles consider the role of the Security Council in developing legal regimes to combat terrorism, for example by the use of targeted sanctions, or by general legislative measures. An evaluation of the contribution of the sum of these measures to the goals of peace and security as embodied in the UN Charter is central to this collection.

This book evaluates American foreign policy actions from the perspective of great power responsibility, with three case studies: Operation Iraqi Freedom, American drone strikes in Pakistan and the post- 9/11 practice of extraordinary rendition. This book argues that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, American drone attacks in Pakistan and the practice of extraordinary rendition are the examples of irresponsible actions undertaken by the U.S. acting as a great power in international society. Focusing on a major theoretical approach of International Relations, the English School, this book considers the responsibilities of great powers in international society. It points to three obligations of great powers: to act according to the norm of legality, to act according to the norm of legitimacy, and to adhere to the principles of prudence. The author applies the criteria of legality, legitimacy and prudence, to analyse the three foreign policy endeavours of the U.S., and, developing a normative framework, clarifies the implications for future U.S. foreign policy. This book will be of strong interest to students and scholars of international relations, international relations theory, American politics, foreign policy studies, international law, South Asian studies and Middle Eastern studies.

Volume 108 of Terrorism: Commentary on Security Documents tackles the contentious issue that appears in the volume's title: "Extraordinary Rendition". Although many commentators and publications have focused on the U.S. policy of such troubling transfers, little focus has been devoted to the reaction to this policy by the rest of the world. In this volume, new General Co-Editor Aziz Huq both presents the key documents demonstrating that reaction and comments authoritatively on what those documents mean for the future of torture-based international transfers. For ease of research, Huq has divided the volume into two sections: the first deals with U.N. and E.U. responses to the U.S. policy, including a case before the U.N. Committee Against Torture, and the second section tours the reports and cases on rendition that have arisen from national jurisdictions, specifically Italy, Sweden, the U.K., ireland, and Canada.

The third edition of Ingrid Detter's authoritative work explores the changing legal context of modern warfare in light of events over the last decade. Ingrid Detter reviews the status of non-State actors, as individuals and groups become more prominent in international society. Covering post 9/11 events and the resulting changes in the ethos of war, the author analyses the role of military companies and examines what their legitimacy means for international society. The edition also discusses certain ’intrinsic’ rules in the Law of War, such as rules giving individuals the right to be spared genocide, torture, slavery and apartheid and assure them basic democratic rights. The author questions the right of ’illegal’ combatants to be treated as prisoners of war and suggests that a minimum standard must be afforded to all, whether captured dictators or detainees suspected of terrorism. In the modern world, the individual (the soldier, the civilian, the dictator, the terrorist or the pirate) can no longer behave as they wish. Further new topics include 'target killings', the ’right to protect’ (’R2P’, - claimed to be a new form of intervention), the use of unregulated weapons such as drones and robots, the war scenario in Outer Space and cyber crimes. There is also a discussion of new developments in the field of war crimes including severe criticism of the novel concept 'joint criminal enterprise' (JCE), which, in the opinion of the author, undermines the Rule of Law. This updated and expanded edition will be of use to statesmen, scholars and students of international relations and international law.

Secrecy is a prevalent feature of politics within and among liberal democratic states, as well as in the relations between states and international organisations. However, surprisingly little research in political science has explored the effects of secrecy on policy making; the evolution of the regulatory frameworks that govern the use of secrecy; and the tensions between secrecy and transparency. This fascinating volume examines secrecy in European politics across a range of EU and national settings and policy domains, exploring the technological, social and political developments which appear to signal the end of privacy and the rapid expansion of political secrecy in European multi-level settings. Consequently, the tensions between democratic accountability with its transparency requirements, and political secrecy, which is typically justified on grounds of effectiveness of state action, have become more marked and more politicised. Engaging with these developments, the authors focus on actors’ motivations in secret politics; institutional perspectives that highlight contestation over secrecy norms; and organisational perspectives that emphasise the diversity of secrecy cultures. This book will be of great interest to students, researchers and professionals of political science and law. It was originally published as a special issue of the journal West European Politics.

This book provides an in-depth analysis of UK-US intelligence cooperation in the post-9/11 world. Seeking to connect an analysis of intelligence liaison with the wider realm of Anglo-American Relations, the book draws on a wide range of interviews and consultations with key actors in both countries. The book is centred around two critical and empirical case studies, focusing on the interactions on the key issues of counterterrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) counter-proliferation. These case studies provide substantive insights into a range of interactions such as 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings, the A.Q. Khan nuclear network, the prelude to the 2003 Iraq War, extraordinary rendition and special forces deployments. Drawing on over 60 interviews conducted in the UK and US with prominent decision-makers and practitioners, these issues are examined in the contemporary historical context, with the main focus being on the years 2000-05. This book will be of much interest to students of intelligence studies, foreign policy, security studies and International Relations in general. Adam Svendsen has a Phd in International History from the University of Warwick. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University, and has contributed to the International Security Programme at Chatham House and to the work of IISS, London.

AILC is an annual case law reporter that provides the full text of U.S. court opinions involving international law issues. The courts covered include all U.S. federal district courts, federal appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as some state courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. Tax Court. The series seeks to provide not every single case in which a court refers to international law but rather all cases that analyze at least one international law issue in depth. The list of subjects addressed by these volumes is vast and changes from year to year, with the inclusion and prominence of most topics turning on their prevalence in a given year's jurisprudence. Some consistently prominent topics are personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, deportation procedure, and double taxation. Over the last three editions (2006, 2007, and 2008), many topics have developed rapidly and constitute a correspondingly larger portion of the volumes, particularly Terrorism, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Forum Non Conveniens, and an entirely new, added topic: the National Security Exception (to deportation eligibility). The 2008 edition of AILC also features expanded sections on family law and on the detention of terrorist suspects. The U.S. war on terror and the crisis at Guantanamo have made that last topic a significant and dynamic component of AILC. Each edition of AILC also comes framed with two practical resources for students and scholars. The first is an introductory editor's note that both reviews international law's major developments for the given year and explains to readers how to use the volumes. The second is a subject index to allow for targeted research. Volume Seven of AILC includes cases on multilateral conventions such as the Montreal Protocol and the Convention Against Torture. The volume also concerns the status and rights of aliens, involving asylum and deportation procedures and due process rights. In Rashad v. Mukasey, the petitioner submitted a petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Immigration Judge (IJ) rejected the petition since it was filed past the one year statutory period. The circuit court affirmed the IJ's decision and found that the evidence and testimony offered by the petitioner was insufficient to compel a reasonable fact finder to conclude that more likely than not he would be tortured or persecuted if he were to return to Pakistan. In Arar v. Ashcroft, Arar alleged a violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act and his Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights arising form the conditions of his detention in the United States, the denial of his access to counsel and to the courts while in the United States, and his detention and torture in Syria. The court examined whether Arar's extraordinary rendition claim could be examined under a new context.