Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:40:50.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Checks and balances of risk management: precautionary logic and the judiciary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

FILIP GELEV
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 Ulrich Beck placed terrorism alongside other potentially catastrophic events such as global warming, nuclear disaster, and influenza as one of the ‘dimensions’ of risk society. In risk society, executive governments take ‘precautionary measures’ and parliaments pass ‘preventative laws’ allowing them to accumulate information, detain terrorism suspects, freeze funds and prohibit various groups, in order to stop catastrophic risks from eventuating. International Relations and legal scholars have used risk society theory or the ideas of Michel Foucault to criticise such excesses of the executive and parliamentary branches of government. Most studies either ignore the judiciary or argue that it stands in opposition to the other branches of governments, that it imposes checks and balances in order to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights. The article argues that this view is naïve and does not acknowledge a long history of judicial deference to the will of the executive and parliament. Through an analysis of case law from Australia and Canada the article explores parallels between early 21st century judicial reasoning and previous periods of crisis, including the Cold War, while identifying some new ‘precautionary approach’ aspects. The judiciary defers to the executive, asserts that the executive is more accountable than it, and seeks to avoid responsibility for engaging in this ‘precautionary justice’. Furthermore, seized by the same fear of terrorism as executive governments, the judiciary shows an ability to adapt existing legal concepts to the exigencies of risk society. The article concludes that as the memory of the 9/11 attacks fades some of the most draconian preventative measures may be scaled back but the judiciary cannot be relied on to keep the executive or parliament in check.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 2237 - 2252
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Walker, Clive, ‘Keeping Control of Terrorists Without Losing Control of Constitutionalism’, Stanford Law Review, 59 (2007), pp. 1395–1463, 1400Google Scholar ; Werner, Wouter and Johns, Fleur, ‘The Risks of International Law’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 21:4 (2008), pp. 783–786, 784–785Google Scholar .

2 Devika Hovell, ‘Black Holes or Loopholes? Human Rights in the Risk Society’, HREOC Seminar, Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW (6 April 2005), available at: {www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/Publications/docs/pubs/2005_BlackHolesorLoopholes.doc}. See also Dyzenhaus, David, ‘Humpty Dumpty Rules or the Rule of Law: Legal Theory and the Adjudication of National Security’, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 28 (2003), pp. 1–30Google Scholar .

3 Gross, Oren, ‘Chaos and Rules: Should Responses to Violent Crises Always Be Constitutional’, Yale Law Journal, 112 (2003), pp. 1011–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; see also Tushnet, Mark, ‘Defending Korematsu?: Reflections on Civil Liberties in Wartime’, Wisconsin Law Review (2003), pp. 273–307Google Scholar .

4 The cases were selected based of their high profile and because they deal with precautionary type measures.

5 Thomas vs. Mowbray (Thomas) (2007) 237 Australian Law Reports 194; published online (2007) High Court of Australia 33, available at: {http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/33.html}.

6 Haneef vs. MIAC (2007) 161 Federal Court Reports 40; published online (2007) Federal Court of Australia, available at: {http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/1273.html}; on appeal MIAC vs. Haneef (2007) 163 Federal Court Reports 414; published online (2007) Federal Court of Australia Full Court 203, available at: {http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2007/203.html}.

7 Charkaoui vs. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Charkaoui) (2007) 1 Supreme Court Reports 350; published online (2007) Supreme Court Reports 5, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc9/2007scc9.html}.

8 Suresh vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Suresh) (2002) 1 Supreme Court Reports 3; published online (2002) Supreme Court Cases 1, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc1/2002scc1.html}.

9 Mythen, Gabe, ‘Reappraising the Risk Society Thesis: Telescopic Sight or Myopic Vision?’, Current Sociology, 55:3 (2007), pp. 793–813, 793–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

10 Beck, Ulrich, ‘The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited’, Theory, Culture & Society, 19:4 (2002), pp. 39–55, 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

11 Mythen, Gabe and Walklate, Sandra, ‘Criminology and Terrorism, Which Thesis? Risk Society or Governmentality?’, British Journal of Criminology, 46 (2006), pp. 379–398, 384CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

12 Mythen, Gabe and Walklate, Sandra, ‘Terrorism, Risk and International Security’, Security Dialogue, 39:2–3 (2008), pp. 221–242, 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

13 Beck, Ulrich, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992), p. 49Google Scholar .

14 O'Malley, Pat, Risk, Uncertainty and Government (New York: Glasshouse Press, 2004), p. 3Google Scholar .

15 Beck, ‘Terrorist Threat’, pp. 39–40.

16 Suskind, Ron, The One Per Cent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006), p. 166Google Scholar as cited in Goede, Marieke de, ‘The Politics of Preemption and the War on Terror in Europe’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008), pp. 161–185, 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

17 Foucault, Michel, ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin and Miller, Peter (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 87–104, 95Google Scholar .

18 Burchell, , Gordon, and Miller, , Foucault Effect, p. 3Google Scholar .

19 Aradau, Claudia and van Munster, Rens, ‘Governing Terrorism Through Risk: Taking Precautions, (un)Knowing the Future’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007), pp. 89–115, 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

20 Aradau and van Munster, ‘Governing Terrorism’, p. 102.

21 O'Malley, Pat, Risk, Uncertainty, p. 178Google Scholar .

22 Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby, The Risk Society at War. Terror, Technology and Strategy in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 4Google Scholar .

23 Brandy vs. Human Rights Commission (1995) 183 Commonwealth Law Reports 245, p. 268.

24 Oliver Kessler, ‘The Same As It Never Was? Uncertainty and the Changing Contours of International Law’, this Special Section.

25 Ericson, Richard, Crime in an Insecure World (2006)Google Scholar as cited in Goldsmith, Andrew, ‘Preparation for Terrorism: Catastrophic Risk and Precautionary Criminal Law’, in Lynch, Andrew, MacDonald, Edwina and Williams, George (eds), Law and Liberty in the War on Terror (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2007), pp. 59–74, 60Google Scholar .

26 Beck, ‘Terrorist Threat’, p. 43.

27 de Goede, ‘Politics of Preemption’, p. 164.

28 Walker, ‘Keeping Control’, p. 1402.

29 de Goede, ‘Politics of Preemption’, p. 176.

30 Aradau and van Munster, ‘Governing Terrorism’, pp. 103–4, 106.

31 Ibid., p. 106.

32 Lord Steyn, Lord of Appeal of the House of Lords, ‘Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Blackhole’, Twenty-Seventh F.A. Mann Lecture (25 November 2003), p. 2. The case was Liversidge vs. Anderson, (1942) Appeal Cases 206.

33 The US Supreme Court's Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

[I]n a civilized society the most important task is achieving a proper balance between freedom and order. In wartime, reason and history both suggest that this balance shifts to some degree in favor of order – in favor of the government's ability to deal with conditions that threaten the national well-being.

Rehnquist, W. H., All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (New York: Random House, 1998), pp. 222–223Google Scholar as cited in Gross, ‘Chaos and Rules’, pp. 1020–1.

34 Gross, ‘Chaos and Rules’, p. 1034.

35 Dyzenhaus, David and Thwaites, Rainer, ‘Legality and Emergency – The Judiciary in a Time of Terror’, in Lynch, , MacDonald, and Williams, Law and Liberty, pp. 9–27, 9Google Scholar .

36 Bonner, David, ‘Checking the Executive? Detention Without Trial, Control Orders, Due Process and Human Rights’, European Public Law, 12:1 (2006), pp. 45–72Google Scholar .

37 Amoore, Louise, ‘Risk Before Justice: When the Law Contests its own Suspension’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 21:4 (2008), pp. 847–861, 850CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

38 R vs. Thomas (No 3) 14 Victorian Reports 512.

39 For the Australian legislation see Jabbour vs. Thomas, unreported, published online (2006) Federal Magistrates Court of Australia 1286 (27 August 2006), available at: {http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2006/1286.html}.

40 On the basis of the same evidence which in the criminal proceedings was held to have been improperly obtained.

41 Jabbour vs. Thomas.

42 Criminal Code 1995.

43 Allard, Tom, ‘Jihad Jack Wife Terror Link’, Sydney Morning Herald (29 August 2006)Google Scholar .

44 Thomas, Chief Justice Gleeson, p. 205; [15]. In this section numbers without brackets after the name of the law reports (for example, Australian Law Reports, Supreme Court Reports) refer to the page numbers in those law reports, the numbers in square brackets refer to the paragraph numbers in the online version.

45 Thomas, Justice Hayne, p. 321; [468]; Justice Kirby, pp. 281–2; [321]–[322].

46 Thomas, Justice Hayne, p. 327; [495].

47 Ibid., pp. 323–4; [476].

48 Thomas, Justice Hayne, p. 329; [504]; Justice Kirby, pp. 280–1; [317].

49 Thomas, Justice Kirby, pp. 291–2; [354].

50 Thomas, Chief Justice Gleeson, p. 205; [16]. ‘Preventive justice’ is an expression the Chief Justice borrowed from the writings of the 18th century jurist William Blackstone. See also Justices Gummow and Crennan, pp. 219–20; [73]–[77]; Justice Callinan, pp. 291–92; [591]–[600].

51 Dyzenhaus and Thwaites, ‘Legality and Emergency’, p. 24.

52 See also Kessler, ‘The Same As It Never Was?’ and Aalberts and Werner, ‘Mobilising Uncertainty and the Making of Responsible Sovereigns’, this Special Section.

53 Kessler, ‘The Same As It Never Was’.

54 Australian Communist Party vs. Commonwealth (1951) 83 Commonwealth Law Reports 1.

55 Cole, David, ‘Judging the Next Emergency: Judicial Review and Individual Rights in Times of Crisis’, Michigan Law Review, 101 (2003), pp. 2565–2595CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

56 Brodie, Bernard, ‘Strategy as Science’, World Politics, 1 (1949), pp. 467–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

57 Australian Communist Party, Justice Dixon, p. 198.

58 Ibid., pp. 195–6.

59 Thomas, Justice Callinan, p. 353; [583].

60 Ibid., p. 342; [544]; Justice Heydon, p. 371; [648]–[649].

61 Thomas, Justices Gummow and Crennan, p. 235; [146].

62 Thomas, Chief Justice Gleeson, p. 202; [7]; Justices Gummow and Crennan, p. 234; [141]; Justice Hayne, pp. 314–5; [438]–[439]; Justice Callinan, p. 353; [583].

63 Thomas, Justice Callinan, p. 355; [590].

64 Thomas, Justices Gummow and Crennan, p. 235; [145].

65 Ibid., p. 236; [149]–[150]. Chief Justice Gleeson agreed that the external affairs power sustained the legislation, p. 202; [6].

66 Ibid., pp. 236–7; [152]–[153], quote from Suresh (2002), p. 50; [88].

67 Haneef vs. MIAC, pp. 43–53; [5]–[68].

68 Ibid., p. 47; [31]–[32].

69 MIAC vs. Haneef, p. 447; [128].

70 Forcese, Craig, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: The Role and Review of “National Security” Concepts in Canadian Law’, Alberta Law Review, 43 (2006), pp. 963–1000, 981Google Scholar .

71 Haneef vs. MIAC, p. 86; [261]–[264]; MIAC vs. Haneef, pp. 448–9; [133]–[135].

72 Neighbour, Sally, ‘Police chief on the back foot’, The Australian (4 August 2007)Google Scholar .

73 Barrowclough, Anne, ‘Haneef inquiry sparks Australian terror law revamp’, Times Online (23 December 2008)Google Scholar , available at:{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5387063.ece}.

74 Re Charkaoui (Charkaoui 2003) (2004) 1 Federal Court Reports 528; published online (2003) Federal Court 882, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc882/2003fc882.html}.

75 Re Charkaoui (Charkaoui 2005) (2005) 3 Federal Court Reports 389; published online (2005) Federal Court 248, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc248/2005fc248.html}, pp. 422–3; [86].

76 Charkaoui (2003), pp. 548–9; [50].

77 ‘The Internment of the Japanese during World War II’, Peace and Conflict. Historica, published online at: {http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=279}.

78 Amoore, Louise, ‘Vigilant Visualities: The Watchful Politics of the War on Terror’, Security Dialogue, 38 (2007), pp. 215–232, 221CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

79 Charkaoui (2003), p. 549; [51].

80 Mueller, John, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them (Washington DC: Free Press, 2006)Google Scholar as cited in Gardner, Dan, Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear (Carlton North, Australia: Scribe Publications, 2008), p. 311Google Scholar .

81 Re Charkaoui (2004), 260 Federal Trial Reports 238; published online (2004) Federal Court 1031, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc1031/2004fc1031.html}, [39].

82 Charkaoui (2005), p. 420; [75].

83 For example, observing a curfew, being accompanied at all other times, wearing an electronic tag, Charkaoui (2005), pp. 422–3; [86].

84 Charkaoui (2007).

85 Ibid., pp. 392–400; [70]–[87].

86 Poole, Thomas, ‘Recent Developments in the “War on Terrorism” in Canada’, Human Rights Law Review, 7:3 (2007), pp. 633–642, 633CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

87 Charkaoui (2007), pp. 408 and 415; [107] and [127].

88 Ibid., pp. 401–2; [90].

89 Ibid., pp. 394–5; [75], emphasis in original.

90 Suresh (2002).

91 Ibid., pp. 49–50; [86]–[87].

92 Ibid., pp. 50–1; [88].

93 Ibid., p. 51; [90].

94 Suresh vs.Canada (2000) 2 Federal Court 592; published online (2000) CanLII 17101, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2000/2000canlii17101/2000canlii17101.html}, [120].

95 Suresh (2002), pp. 46–7; [78].

96 Coutu, Michel and Giroux, Marie-Hélène, ‘The Aftermath of September 11: Liberty v Security before the Supreme Court of Canada’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18:2 (2006), pp. 313–332, 313–314 and 323 respectively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97 US vs. Burns (2001) 1 Supreme Court Reports 283; published online (2000) Supreme Court Cases 7, available at: {http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc7/2001scc7.html}.

98 Kindler vs. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1991) 2 Supreme Court Reports, pp. 779, 837.

99 US vs. Burns, [35]. In any event Mr Burns and his co-accused were extradited soon after this decision.

100 Suresh (2002), p. 51; [89].

101 Ibid., p. 12; [3], emphasis added.

102 Freeze, Colin and El Akkad, Omar, ‘New Security Certificates Issued’, The Globe and Mail (22 February 2008)Google Scholar .

103 de Goede, ‘Politics of Preemption’, p. 163.

104 Home Secretary vs. Rehman (2003) 1 Appeal Cases 153, Lord Steyn, p. 187. For a more recent example see the reasons of Lord Hope in the House of Lords decision in RB (Algeria) and OO (Jordan) vs. Home Secretary (2009) United Kingdom House of Lords 10, a deportation case, spoke at [209]–[210] of the rule of law and the protection of minorities even if people may say ‘[o]n their own heads be it if their extremist views expose them to the risk of ill-treatment when they get home’. He then proceeded to uphold the deportation decisions.

105 Home Secretary vs. Rehman (2003) 1 Appeal Cases, pp. 153, 185–6, quoting from the decision of one of the other members of the Court, Lord Woolf.

106 Mowbray FM reduced considerably the list of individuals Mr Thomas cannot contact: Jabbour vs. Thomas, Schedule 1.

107 The idea of risk ‘export’ was coined in relation to some UK cases. See UK House of Commons Standing Committee E, 7th Session (27 Ocotober 2005), col. 271.

108 Claudia Aradau and Rens van Munster, ‘Imagination, Security and Uncertainty’, paper presented at the VIEW conference Mobilisations of Uncertainty and Responsibility in International Politics and Law, Netherlands Defence Academy, 20–22 November 2008.