Exceptionalism and Transnationalism: UK Judicial Control of the Detention of Foreign "International Terrorists"

Alternatives

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 491-515

  Guild, Elspeth ^a,b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Kingsley Napley   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242338769     PISSN: 03043754     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030437540302800404     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 27.
2. Ibid., p. 64.
3. Ibid., p. 126.
4. Lawless (No. 3) v. Ireland (1961) 1 EHRR 15; Brannigan & McBride v. UK (1993) 17 EHRR 539.
5. A, X, and Y and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1502 para. 110.
6. A & Ors v. Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/1-7/2002, July 30, 2002.
7. The government also entered a derogation in respect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), but since this has not been incorporated into domestic law it is not directly considered by the court except as regards the validity of the derogation procedure itself.
8. Para. 5.
9. Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
10. (1996) 23 EHRR 413.
11. Para. 4.
12. Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman [2001] UKHL 47.
13. The high degree of international recognition of the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, a Geneva-based NGO, evidences a widespread concern to protect the legitimacy of courts around the world.
14. "President Robert Mugabe has challenged the power and independence of Zimbabwe's courts by calling on the country's highest judges to resign because of their questioning his commitment to the rule of law after the government defied court orders to release two journalists who reported an alleged coup plot": Guardian (London), February 8, 1999.
15. Chandler v. DPP [1964] AC 763.
16. Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman [2001] UKHL 47.
17. H. Yourow, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence (London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996); E. Benvenisti, "Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards" International Law and Politics 31: pp. 843-854.
18. H. Yourow, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence (London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996); E. Benvenisti, "Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards" International Law and Politics 31: pp. 843-854.
19. International Transport Roth GmbH & Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158.
20. Ibid., para. 85.
21. Marchiori v. The Environment Agency & The Secretary of State for Defence & AWE plc [2002] EWCA Civ 03.
22. The difficulties that courts have, not least in the United Kingdom, with class actions exemplifies this. In the face of the incompatibility of the judicial role with collective determination, the mechanism relied upon is that of a representative action - the court gets its individual, which it can see and understand, and the individual stands in front of the collectivity, which remains invisible behind that individual.
23. R v. Governor of Durham Prison ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704.
24. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Saadi (FC) and others (FC) [2002] UKHL 4] para. 25.
25. Para. 9.
26. Para. 14.
27. R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532.
28. Brannigan & McBride v. UK (1993) 13 EHRR 539.
29. Para. 21.
30. A, X and Y and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1502 at para. 34.
31. Agamben, note 1, p. 37.
32. Para. 24.
33. Para. 29.
34. Para. 30.
35. Para. 33.
36. Para. 35.
37. Para. 42.
38. Para. 46.
39. Paras. 48 and 49.
40. Para. 51.
41. (1978) 2 EHRR 25.
42. (1985) 7 EHRR 471.
43. (1997) 23 EHRR 364.
44. Para. 80.
45. Para. 79.
46. Para. 82.
47. R (Saadi) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 4 All ER 961.
48. Not least, the Chahal decision, which haunts the judgment like a ghost.
49. Para. 89.
50. Para. 92.
51. Agamben, note 1, p. 123.
52. Para. 94.
53. Para. 95.
54. Para. 96.
55. Para. 40.
56. Para. 47.
57. Para. 62.