This evening I was very pleased to give the first in this year’s series on seminars on Abortion in Context: Law, Ethics, and Practice, held at University College, Oxford. In today’s seminar (abstract here) I very briefly outlined abortion law in Ireland (drawing largely on this recent article in the Michigan J. of Gender and the Law) and then considered the ways in which the 8th amendment holds a powerful rhetorical hold on politics, professional practice, and popular sentiment in Ireland. This rhetorical power is, I claimed, significant in any consideration of the obstacles to be overcome in attempting to build momentum behind (a) holding and (b) winning a referendum on repeal of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The slides from this evening’s talk are here, and there will be a further seminar on abortion in Univ every week for the rest of this term. Details of the full term card are available here.
Author: fdelondras
New article on human rights and EU counter-terrorism
I am pleased to say that my forthcoming article, “Accounting for Rights in EU Counter-Terrorism: Towards Effective Review”, has now gone to print. The paper will appear in the Columbia Journal of European Law, the world’s top-ranked EU law journal, and builds on work undertaken as part of the SECILE project. It also sets some of the scene for the work I will be doing in the coming 12 months with the Israel Democracy Institute, tracing the role of rights and proportionality in the process of making the (imminent) EU Directive on Combating Terrorism. As the EU moves towards a European Security Union (discussed again in Brussels just yesterday), our understanding of how, where, when and whether human rights are effectively considered in both ex ante and ex post facto processes relating to EU counter-terrorism continues to be significant. My research suggests that these processes fail to take rights into adequate account, but that a change in mindset (which I propose in this paper) may help.
The full paper will soon be published, although I am happy to provide a pdf by email should anyone request it (f.delondras @ bham.ac.uk). In the meantime, the abstract is as follows:
Since 2001 the European Union (EU) has developed a rich and wide-ranging body of counter-terrorism law. However, in making and implementing that law the EU, its institutions and its member states have often failed to adequately account for fundamental rights. Thus, EU counter-terrorism has been criticized as unduly interfering with the right to privacy, for example, to the extent that the Court of Justice struck down the Data Retention Directive in 2014 on fundamental rights grounds. This Article outlines the mechanisms by which rights are accounted for in EU counter-terrorism, identifying the deficiencies in current practices. The article argues for an effective “feedback loop” in EU counter-terrorism, advocating the design and implementation of a system of regular and evaluative reviews of EU counter-terrorist laws with a view to both identifying and remedying rights-related deficiencies in those laws, and improving the governance of EU counter-terrorism in order to reduce the likelihood of such deficiencies arising in future law-making processes. Such a system, the Article argues, ought to be designed by reference to the principles of cooperation, transparency and responsiveness.
In conversation with Judge Silvis: terrorism and human rights
Last night I was at the University of Liverpool to act as discussant of a lecture by Judge Johannes Silvis of the European Court of Human Rights who spoke about ‘terrorism and human rights’ in the jurisprudence of the Court. In his lecture, Judge Silvis outlined some of the key challenges for the reconciliation of rights and security in the cases that come before the Court, and discussed key jurisprudence as well as flagging important forthcoming cases (e.g. on surveillance, and the revisiting of Ireland v United Kingdom).
I was very pleased to be invited to respond to and discuss Judge Silvis’ lecture. Of course, in a short period of time (20 minutes) one cannot expect to do justice to the complexity of the jurisprudence in question, or indeed to challenging context in which these cases emerge and are adjudicated. However, having outlined what we might justifiable expect of a supranational, subsidiary, human rights court such as the ECtHR in the context of counter-terrorism and human rights (e.g. challenging underpinning assumptions about rights and/or security, challenging claims of extraordinariness, maintaining a clear and effective distinction between emergency and normalcy), I argued that the Court’s record is a mixed one. The key challenge is the deference afforded by the Court to state claims of (a) exceptional insecurity, (b) the necessity of the measures impugned, and (c) the content of the rights protected by reference to (a) and (b). I also questioned whether, notwithstanding this mixed record and the persistence of deference, the Court is capable of doing more while maintaining its legitimacy, especially taking into account its particular and limited nature.
The lecture was broadcast, but is also available now on YouTube, with my response/discussion starting at around 54 minutes in.
Review of ‘The Impact, Legitimacy and Effectiveness of EU Counter-Terrorism’
Last year, Routledge published a book edited by Josephine Doody and I entitled The Impact, Legitimacy and Effectiveness of EU Counter-Terrorism. The Cambridge Law Journal has now published the first review of the book (C.L.J. 2016, 75(1), 179-182). The reviewer, Anna Marie Brennan (Liverpool), is generous in both her praise and her attention to the chapters that make up the collection. Some extracts are below:
The European Union (EU) continues to play an important role in the development of counter-terrorism law more than a decade after the Al Qaeda attacks on 11 September 2001. Fiona de Londras and Josephine Doody’s edited collection is, therefore, timely. They have brought together an anthology of essays by specialists in the fields of counter-terrorism law, human rights law, and EU law that address key issues in a systematic, synthetic, and critical fashion. A principal merit of the editors is their approach – de Londras and Doody draw on legal, democratic, societal, and operational perspectives to produce an interdisciplinary examination of the impact, legitimacy, and effectiveness of EU counter-terrorism, thereby rendering the volume credible. To date, there has been little research conducted on the legitimacy, impact, and effectiveness of EU counter-terrorism measures. A proper understanding of these issues is essential for reasonable analysis of how the EU has responded to terrorism. This edited collection excellently captures the relationship between the concepts of impact, legitimacy, and effectiveness when policy-makers are drafting and reviewing EU counter-measures. As a result, this book makes a significant contribution to the existing literature in the field.
…
Overall, this book is an excellent addition to the debate and dialogue on EU counter-terrorism. As well as providing a unique insight into the effectiveness of the EU in countering terrorism, the book also demonstrates how the rest of the international community could well take note of the EU’s approach to the prevention of terroristic activity. What is most significant about the book – and should not go underestimated – is the emphasis it places upon the primacy of impact, legitimacy, and effectiveness. It demonstrates how these three concepts are a central part of the overall EU counter-terrorism strategy, and its effective implementation and clear legal contours are vital to its existence. Fundamentally, this collection of essays provides clarity on these interpretive issues and suggests approaches for overcoming the challenges that the rapid growth of the EU’s counter-terrorism strategy has garnered. This book will be useful not only for academics, but also for legal practitioners and students, who are invited to reflect on the complex nexus between the EU and counter-terrorism law and policy.
Professor Fiona de Londras 