<scp>E</scp>uropean Human Rights Law and the Normalisation of the ‘Closed Material Procedure’: Limit or Source?

Nanopoulos, Eva

doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12155

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…147 These non-criminal preventive measures are often directed at individuals who are suspected of being involved, or are considered to be at risk of becoming involved, in terrorism but cannot be prosecuted for lack of sufficient evidence or due to the sensitivity of the evidence. 148 Non-criminal preventive measures include Control Orders and their replacement TPIMs that allow the Home Secretary to impose a number of restrictions on terrorism suspects, 149 citizenship deprivation orders and various immigration and travel restrictions.…”

Section: An Unnecessary and Dangerous Bypassing Of The Criminal Law?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Countering Terrorism in the Family Courts: A Dangerous Development

Ahdash

2023

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically appraises the implications of the recent emergence of radicalisation cases in the family courts of England and Wales and the involvement of the family justice system in preventing and countering terrorism. It identifies, and takes issue with, a dominant narrative found in case‐law, practitioner commentaries, think‐tank reports and academic and government literature, which regards the radicalisation cases as a positive legal development. Challenging its characterisation of this line of cases as ordinary family law cases, the article uncovers the significant influence of the logic, priorities and goals of counter‐terrorism policy and practice on the family courts. After demonstrating that the radicalisation cases have facilitated the extensive, if surreptitious, involvement of the family courts in the counter‐terrorist endeavour, the article claims that the expansion of counter‐terrorism into the family justice system is an unnecessary and dangerous legal development with worrying implications for human rights, equality and open justice.

show abstract

Section: An Unnecessary and Dangerous Bypassing Of The Criminal Law?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Countering Terrorism in the Family Courts: A Dangerous Development

Ahdash

2023

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…99 The normalisation of closed material procedures in UK domestic proceedings has been heavily scrutinised in recent years (e.g. Jackson 2016;Nanopoulos 2015;Amnesty International 2012;Metcalfe 2009), not least due to the perceived detrimental impact upon the principles of open and natural justice.…”

Section: Application Of Sanctions Laws: Judicial Review and Natural J...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Form and Flexibility: The Normalisation of ‘Magnitsky Sanctions’ in the Face of the Rule of Law

Pasculli

Stanford

2022

Hague J Rule Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

So-called 'Magnitsky laws' in various jurisdictions are turning unilateral sanctions into normalised instruments for the international promotion of the rule of law. However, the considerable regulatory and executive flexibility introduced by these laws is at strain with the fundamental requirements of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Despite a growing literature on sanctions, a systematic and comparative assessment of Magnitsky laws against both the national and international requirements of the rule of law is still lacking. This paper offers a first comparative analysis of the compatibility of US, Canadian, UK, and Australian unilateral sanctions laws with the formal and procedural principles of the rule of law that constitute the common core of both its national and international notions. By analysing the formal aspects of the legal basis, design and application of these laws, our study identifies and conceptualises the legislative techniques that enable the normalisation of Magnitsky sanctions. We find that these techniques, which we name the 'generalisation' of sanctions laws, are not inherently incompatible with the rule of law, but so far national legislators have failed to ensure the right balance between the flexibility introduced by such techniques and the rigorous requirements of legality. The principled recommendations we propose based on our findings seek to help lawmakers around the world to strike the right balance between form and flexibility.

show abstract

“…147 Both the English common law and the ECHR reflect a 'spectrum' of different levels of procedural protection, rather than a single conception underpinned by a single normative justification. 148 Review for procedural fairness is never done with a view to an instrumental search for 'correctness' which Hovell correctly points out as having the potential to lead to arbitrary results. 149 In respect of the need to safeguard secret intelligence, the English courts have also vindicated the principle of 'originator control'.…”

Section: An Alternative Conception Of Judicial Review Of Security Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Power and Process: Legal and Political Control over (Inter)national Security †

Hooper

2018

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Securing fair procedures in the realm of (inter)national security has historically been much more difficult than in other realms of administration. It is necessary to steer a course between the national and the international, and law and politics. Any conception of the relationship between these forums and values will have different consequences, for both institutions tasked with the protection of security, and for persons affected by sanctions. This review of Devika Hovell's The Power of Process: The Value of Due Process in Security Council Sanctions Decision-Making argues that the presence of binding legal rulings against the exercise of such power remains an essential complement to innovative political forms of control such as an international Ombudsperson.

show abstract

European Human Rights Law and the Normalisation of the ‘Closed Material Procedure’: Limit or Source?

Cited by 11 publications

References 33 publications

Countering Terrorism in the Family Courts: A Dangerous Development

Countering Terrorism in the Family Courts: A Dangerous Development

Form and Flexibility: The Normalisation of ‘Magnitsky Sanctions’ in the Face of the Rule of Law

Between Power and Process: Legal and Political Control over (Inter)national Security †

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About