The course is available also to students on the MA Legal Studies programme, who may take it as a 30 credit option. This option requires an additional element of assessment one 1, word essay. Degree Programmes for which this Course is Prescribed. Contact Teaching Time. Information on contact teaching time is available from the course guide.
Teaching Breakdown. Summative Assessments. Formative Assessment. Feedback will be provided on the feedback form within three weeks from the date of submission. Course Learning Outcomes.
Irish Trust for Civil Liberties, Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
You can use the following keys to navigate: Alt - expose page keyboard keys R - return to previous page? Compatibility Mode We have detected that you are have compatibility mode enabled or are using an old version of Internet Explorer. Second Sub Session. He is a specialist in international human rights, the Browser does not support script. Lecturer Dr Gulara Guliyeva has been developing a record of strong research in European Law, published in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections. Professor of Law and Society Mental Capacity and Disability Law, especially research involving questions of everyday decision-making, dementia, intellectual disability, powers of attorney, advance directives and end of life decision making.
Senior Lecturer Deputy Head of School Education Dr Adrian Hunt teaches and researches in the fields of public law, human rights, crime, and aspects of international law.
LX CIVIL LIBERTIES: POLITICAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW - Catalogue of Courses
Reader in Law Deputy Head of Research Dr Mavronicola researches and teaches on human rights, public law, and legal theory, as well as on the interplay between counter-terrorism and human rights and on key intersections between human rights and criminal justice. Winterbourne House and Garden University Music. Research and Cultural collections. See all schools, departments, research and professional services Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences. Conferences and hospitality Facilities search Birmingham Day Nurseries. Libraries Guild of students. Torture As An Interrogation Tool? Given this position, the use of torture as a State-sanctioned tool of interrogation sounds outlandish and improbable; yet it has of late been mooted by a leading Harvard academic,  and the use of evidence obtained by torture has even been considered by the British government.
The House of Lords rejected this proposition, holding:. The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted. To that question I would give a very clear negative answer.
They blend in with the civilian population. They emerge to strike, and then they retreat back into the shadows. And that's why there are thousands of our fellow citizens running down every single piece of intelligence we can find, doing everything we can to disrupt folks that might be here in America trying to hurt you.
Extraordinary enemies have made for extraordinary responses. To the torture debate first. The utility of torture as a tool is discussed nonchalantly by Alan M. He says. Pain is a lesser and more remediable harm than death; and the lives of a thousand innocent people should be valued more than the bodily integrity of one guilty person. He would be granted immunity, told that he was now compelled to testify, threatened with imprisonment if he refused to do so, and given the option of providing the requested information.
Only if he refused to do what he was legally compelled to do — provide necessary information, which could not incriminate him because of the immunity — would he be threatened with torture. Knowing that such a threat was authorized by the law, he might well provide the information.
Related books and articles
If he still refused to, he would be subjected to judicially monitored physical measures designed to cause excruciating pain without leaving any lasting damage. So not only is torture justifiable, no trial is necessary to decide whether an individual is a guilty terrorist, and by reason of the grant of immunity no presumption of innocence need apply.
The privilege against self-incrimination has been deftly cast aside. The international law stance on torture is worth bearing in mind as an intellectual reference point. The right not to be tortured, it must be remembered, is non-derogable, under any circumstances. This critical fact, not the vote-catching potential of hardline rhetoric, should be foremost in the minds of politicians whenever they consider legislation that might impinge on our traditional civil rights. The torture debate is arguably outside the civil liberties realm. The right not to be tortured is a fundamental human right rather than a mere civil liberty.
However, against the backdrop of the debate on torture a more insidious process of civil liberty erosion is occurring, which seems a comparatively lesser evil. But civil liberties lost are soon forgotten, as a process of normalisation occurs to blend extraordinary measures into the legal system.
- Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century!
- Global Constitutionalism in International Legal Perspective (Queen Mary Studies in International Law).
- Civil Liberties and Human Rights in the Aftermath of September 11.
It can convincingly be argued that sacrificing privacy rights makes citizens less free without making them more secure, and amounts to destroying freedom in order to defend it. The Patriot Act is among a number of American legislative measures designed to remove the impediments that individual privacy rights pose to investigations. It permits the interception and monitoring of communications and communications records, and searches without notice.
These powers are largely exercisable without warrant. As one commentator remarks:. Again, this is the antithesis of government restraint: Judicial oversight is allowed no role as a check on the executive branch, and the powers granted extend far beyond the international terrorism suspects that are the legitimate targets of concern. The Act displays the extent to which extraordinary measures can disrupt the existing balance between national security and civil liberties. He said:. Our national consciousness still bears the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, the internment of Japanese Americans, German-Americans and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protestors, including Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
We must not allow these pieces of our past to become prologue. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action.
In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution. Senator Feingold goes on to discuss the incarceration of people based on ethnicity during World War II, and says:.
If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists….
Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. Some of the issues surrounding the continued detention of suspects in custody without charge were considered by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US Rasul v Bush concerned whether American courts had jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus applications of foreign nationals who were detained at Guantanamo Bay; while the English case of A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department centred on the proposed derogation by the UK government from the right to liberty guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, to provide for the detention of non-nationals whose presence in the UK was believed to pose a risk to national security.
Related Civil Liberties & Human Rights
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved