Title: The Balance to be Found Between Civil Liberties and National Security
Abstract: Abstract In the winning essay from the 2012 Trench Gascoigne competition, Megan Warshawsky looks at the struggle between civil liberties and national security, highlighting how the debate over which takes precedence has only intensified given the recent increase in international terrorist attacks. With examples from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, the essay illustrates how, over time, the scales have tipped back and forth between favouring security and favouring liberty. It concludes with a test which can be used to determine when it is necessary to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of national security. Notes 1. Quoted in Hank C Jenkins-Smith and Kerry G Herron, ‘Rock and a Hard Place: Public Willingness to Trade Civil Rights and Liberties for Greater Security’, Politics and Policy (Vol. 37, No. 5, 2009), pp. 1095–123. 2. Quoted in Hank C Jenkins-Smith and Kerry G Herron, ‘Rock and a Hard Place: Public Willingness to Trade Civil Rights and Liberties for Greater Security’, Politics and Policy (Vol. 37, No. 5, 2009), pp. 1095–123. 3. Quoted in Hank C Jenkins-Smith and Kerry G Herron, ‘Rock and a Hard Place: Public Willingness to Trade Civil Rights and Liberties for Greater Security’, Politics and Policy (Vol. 37, No. 5, 2009), pp. 1095–123. 4. Quoted in Geoffrey R Stone, ‘National Security Vs. Civil Liberties’, California Law Review (Vol. 95, No. 6, 2007), pp. 2204, 2208. 5. John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), Chapter 14. 6. Christopher J S Gale, ‘The UK Response to Terrorism: Human Rights and a Wider Perspective’, Working Paper, Bradford University School of Management, January 2006. 7. Nancy V Baker, ‘National Security Versus Civil Liberties’, Presidential Studies Quarterly (Vol. 33, No. 3, 2003), pp. 547–67. 8. Nancy V Baker, ‘National Security Versus Civil Liberties’, Presidential Studies Quarterly (Vol. 33, No. 3, 2003), pp. 547–67. 9. Nancy V Baker, ‘National Security Versus Civil Liberties’, Presidential Studies Quarterly (Vol. 33, No. 3, 2003), pp. 547–67. 10. HM Government, Terrorism Act 2000, Chapter 11. 11. Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill – First Report’, 19 November 2001. 12. England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions, EWHC 1000, PTA/13/2005. 13. Imran Awan, ‘The Problem with Defining Terrorism and the Impact on Civil Liberties – Britain Is Beginning to Create a Monster with Large Claws, Sharp Teeth and a Fierce Temper?’, Journal of Politics and Law (Vol. 1, No. 2, 2008), p. 2. 14. Christopher Michaelsen, ‘Antiterrorism Legislation in Australia: A Proportionate Response to the Terrorist Threat?’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (Vol. 28, No. 4, 2005), pp. 321–39. 15. Christopher Michaelsen, ‘Antiterrorism Legislation in Australia: A Proportionate Response to the Terrorist Threat?’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (Vol. 28, No. 4, 2005), p. 326. 16. Christopher Michaelsen, ‘Antiterrorism Legislation in Australia: A Proportionate Response to the Terrorist Threat?’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (Vol. 28, No. 4, 2005), p. 326. 17. Stanley Cohen, ‘Liberty and Security – Can We Have Both?’, paper prepared for the conference of the International Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law on ‘Technology and Its Effects on Criminal Responsibility, Security and Criminal Justice’, 10 December 2002, p. 7. 18. Stanley Cohen, ‘Liberty and Security – Can We Have Both?’, paper prepared for the conference of the International Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law on ‘Technology and Its Effects on Criminal Responsibility, Security and Criminal Justice’, 10 December 2002, p. 9. 19. Stanley Cohen, ‘Liberty and Security – Can We Have Both?’, paper prepared for the conference of the International Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law on ‘Technology and Its Effects on Criminal Responsibility, Security and Criminal Justice’, 10 December 2002, p. 9. 20. Robert M Chesney, ‘Civil Liberties and the Terrorism Prevention Paradigm: The Guilt by Association Critique’, Michigan Law Review (Vol. 101, No. 6, May 2003), pp. 1409–50. 21. Daniel B Prieto, ‘War About Terror: Civil Liberties and National Security After 9/11’, Working Paper, Council on Foreign Relations, February 2009, p. 7. 22. Shun-Jie Ji, ‘Civil Liberties Vs. National Security: Lessons from September 11th Attacks on America’, Tamkang Journal of International Affairs (Vol. 8, No. 2, October 2004), pp. 133–59. 23. Quoted in Stone, ‘National Security Vs. Civil Liberties’, p. 2206. 24. Quoted in Stone, ‘National Security Vs. Civil Liberties’, p. 2208. 25. Supreme Court of the United States, Schenck v. United States, 3 March 1919. 26. Supreme Court of the United States, Dennis v. United States, 4 June 1951. 27. Peter J Pham, ‘Law, Human Rights, Realism and the “War on Terror”’, Human Rights and Human Welfare (Vol. 4, 2004), pp. 91–106. 28. Kofi Annan, ‘Terrorism is Global Threat, Says Secretary-General, but Measures Against it Must Not be Used to Justify Human Rights Violations’, United Nations press release, 21 November 2002. 29. Annan, ‘Terrorism Is Global Threat, Says Secretary-General, But Measures Against It Must Not Be Used To Justify Human Rights Violations’. 30. Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004). Additional informationNotes on contributorsMegan Warshawsky Megan Warshawsky is currently completing her Master of Arts degree in the Transatlantic Master's Programme at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Publication Year: 2013
Publication Date: 2013-04-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot