The Paradox of United State Democracy

This program is about a paradox at the heart of American democracy. We take it for granted that elected officials, like President Bush and members of Congress, run America. In fact, many of the country\u27s most important decisions are taken by nine unelected lawyers accountable to no one. It is a paradox which is increasingly under scrutiny as more and more Americans are coming to question the power of their Supreme Court

International organisations and anti-terrorist sanctions: no accountability for human rights violations?

The targeted sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council against individuals and entities suspected of association with terrorism are managed through procedures that infringe fundamental human rights, and there are no mechanisms for actual accountability. With the exception of the ECJ in Kadi, municipal and regional courts tend to consider the UN Security Council's resolutions and domestic measures implementing them outside the scope of judicial review. This article argues that the Security Council is bound to observe human rights even in the context of international security action, and that States are not exonerated from international responsibility for violations committed under the umbrella of Chapter VII resolutions

The Protection of Animals through Human Rights. The Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights

The chapter discusses the potential of a human rights framework to contribute to the growth and development of global animal law. It takes as example the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and examine the major trends in the Court’s judgments and admissibility decisions that directly or indirectly concern the rights or welfare of animals. It is concluded that the Court is not indifferent to the welfare of animals, but that animal welfare is instrumentalised: it is understood not as a good in itself, but is instead valued for its implications for human welfare and rights. The chapter then considers the obstacles that the anthropocentrism of the human rights idea and the instrumentalisation of animal concerns present to the use of human rights frameworks to further the development of global animal law, as well as the opportunities that exist in the meeting of these paradigms. It concludes that although the telos of human rights law is different from that of animal law, nevertheless there exist many overlapping concerns within which mutually beneficial interactions are possible

British Torture in the 'War on Terror'

Despite longstanding allegations of UK involvement in prisoner abuse during counterterrorism operations as part of the US-led ‘war on terror’, a consistent narrative emanating from British government officials is that Britain neither uses, condones nor facilitates torture or other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment. We argue that such denials are untenable. We have established beyond reasonable doubt that Britain has been deeply involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse, and we can now provide the most detailed account to date of the depth of this involvement. We argue that it is possible to identify a peculiarly British approach to torture in the ‘war on terror’, which is particularly well-suited to sustaining a narrative of denial. To explain the nature of UK involvement, we argue that it can be best understood within the context of how law and sovereign power have come to operate during the ‘war on terror’. We turn here to the work of Judith Butler, and explore the role of Britain as a ‘petty sovereign’, operating under the state of exception established by the US Executive. UK authorities have not themselves suspended the rule of law so overtly, and indeed have repeatedly insisted on their commitment to it. They have nevertheless been able to construct a rhetorical, legal and policy ‘scaffold’ that has enabled them to demonstrate at least procedural adherence to human rights norms, while at the same time allowing UK officials to acquiesce in the arbitrary exercise of sovereignty over individuals who are denied any access to appropriate representation or redress in compliance with the rule of law

A Renewed Social Democracy for an 'Age of Internationalism':An Interpretivist Account of New Labour’s Foreign Policy

This paper employs an interpretive approach to explore New Labour’s use of social scientific theories in developing its foreign policy. After situating New Labour in the broad tradition of social democracy, it outlines the beliefs that most social democrats shared about the values of internationalism, international community and moral leadership. Taking these concepts in turn, the paper then considers how New Labour modified their content in response to issues raised by ‘New Times’. In so doing, it problematizes New Labour’s responses by revealing that they drew on ideas taken from complex interdependence theory, communitarianism and democratic peace theory respectively. The paper then examines how these theories, in conjunction with the reformulation of its foreign policy, influenced New Labour’s transformation of the three values, before concluding with a brief examination of the dilemmas arising from this process