Contributors
Catherine Appleton is Senior Research Fellow at the School of Law, University of Nottingham. Before this, she was Lecturer in Criminology at the School of Law, University of Leeds, and Research Officer at the Centre for Criminology, Univer sity of Oxford. Dr Appleton’s research focuses on ‘ultimate penalties’ and the question of how societies respond to their most ser ious crimes. Her first monograph, published by Oxford Univer sity Press in 2010, examined Life after Life Impr isonment for a group of released life-sentenced prisoners in England and Wales, and was awarded the 2011 British Society of Criminology Book Prize. Her most recent ar ticle, ‘Lone Wolf Terror ism in Norway’, published in the International Journal of Human Rights, assessed the response by Norwegian authorities to the twin terror attacks in 2011. Cather ine is cur rently engaged on a research project, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, examining the imposition and implementation of life imprisonment worldwide.
Laurie R Blank is a Clinical Professor of Law and the Director of the International Humanitarian Law Clinic at Emor y University School of Law, where she teaches inter national humanitarian law and works directly with students to provide assistance to international tribunals, non-gover nmental organisations, and militaries around the world on cutting-edge issues in humanitar ian law and human rights. Professor Blank is the co-author of International Law and Armed Conflict: Fundamental Pr inciples and Contemporary Challenges in the Law of War (Aspen/Wolters Kluwer, Denver, 2013), co-director of a multi-year project on militar y training prog rammes in the law of war, and co-author of Law of War Training: Resources for Military and Civilian Leaders (2nd edn, US Institute of Peace, Washington DC, 2013) Professor Blank received an AB in Politics from Pr inceton University, an MA in Inter national Relations from the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced Inter national Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University, and a JD from New York University School of Law
Ilaria Bottigliero PhD International Law (Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva), Diplôme d’Études Supérieures Inter national Law (Graduate Institute of International Studies), Laurea Political Sciences (La Sapienza University, Rome) – is Director of Research and Lear ning at the Inter national Development Law Organization (IDLO). Prior to joining IDLO, she lectured at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden, and at the Lund Univer sity Faculty of Law. She was also Lecturer at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. She authored Redress for Victims of Crimes under International Law (Nijhoff, Leiden, 2004), and several publications on victims’ r ights, international criminal justice, and gender issues. Dr Bottigliero is the recipient of the 2010 Worldwide Universities Network – Inter national and Comparative Cr iminal Justice Network Fellowship, hosted by the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds, and the Centre for Criminological Research, Sheffield University. ix
Simon Bronitt is the Deputy Dean (Research) at the TC Beir ne School of Law, Univer sity of Queensland (UQ), Br isbane, Australia Before joining UQ in 2013, he served as the Director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (2009–2014) based at Gr iffith Univer sity. Prior to moving to Queensland, he was a member of the Australian National University College of Law (1991–2009). Drawing on comparative and interdisciplinar y perspectives, he has published widely on cr iminal justice topics ranging across terrorism law and human r ights, comparative cr iminal law, covert policing, family violence, and mental health policing. His key publications include two textbooks, (with B McSher r y) Principles of Cr iminal Law (3rd edn, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 2010) and (with S Bottomley) Law in Context (4th ed, Federation Press, Annandale NSW, 2012).
Manuel Cancio Meliá is Professor of Criminal Law at the Univer sidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM). He holds a Licenciado en Derecho (UAM, 1991), and Doctor en Derecho (PhD; UAM, 1997). His extensive writings (books, chapters, articles, case discussions, as an author and/or editor), on criminal law pr inciples, cr iminal law legal dogmatics, comparative criminal law studies, European cr iminal law, and several single offences (sexual crimes, terrorism, per sonal injuries, crimes against the environment, organised crime) have been published in Spain, most countries of Latin Amer ica, Germany, the US, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, UK, Turkey, Taiwan, and PR China He was a Research Fellow of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD; Universität Bonn, 1992/1993, 1998) and Alexander-von-Humboldt Research Fellow (2002/2009) and has been awarded three honorar y doctorates. He is a member of the advisory boards of several Spanish, Latin American, and Ger man Jour nals on Criminal Law and Secretary of the Cr iminal Law Section of the Spanish Royal Academy for Jurisprudence and Legislation
Maura Conway is a Senior Lecturer in Inter national Security in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University and Principal Investigator on VOX-Pol, a major EUfunded project on violent online political extremism. Her principal research interests are in the area of terror ism and the inter net, including academic and media discourses on cyberterrorism, the functioning and effectiveness of violent political extremist online content, and violent online radicalisation She has presented upon these issues before the UN, the Commission of the European Union, the Royal United Services Institute in London, and elsewhere. Her jour nal ar ticles have appeared in, amongst others, Current History, First Monday, Media, War & Conflict, and Parliamentary Affairs.
Michael Crowley is the Project Coordinator for the Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project, where he is responsible for coordinating the organisation’s research in non-lethal and less lethal weapons utilised by law enforcement, security and militar y forces, and non-state actors. He also is a Senior Research Associate at the Omega Research Foundation and previously held positions at Ver ification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) and the British Amer ican Secur ity Information Centre. Mr Crowley is a PhD candidate at Bradford Univer sity, where he pr imar ily explores mechanisms for the regulation of riot control agents, incapacitants, and related means of deliver y. He received his MRes in research studies from Bradford Univer sity and a BSc in genetics from Liverpool Univer sity in 1987.
Malcolm Dando is Professor of International Secur ity at the Univer sity of Bradford. A biologist by original training, his main research interest is in the preservation of the prohibitions embodied in the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention at a
time of rapid scientific and technological change in the life sciences. His recent publications include Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and London, 2006), which he edited with Mark Wheelis and Lajos Rozsa.
Fergal Davis is a Senior Lecturer and Director of the Parliaments Project at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law in the University of New South Wales, Australia. His research has focused on counter-terror ism and human r ights with a particular focus on Australia, Ireland, and the UK. His major published works include The History & Development of the Special Criminal Court – 1921–2005 (2nd edn, Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2014), (with N McGar rity and G Williams), Sur veillance, Counter-Terrorism and Comparative Constitutionalism (Routledge, Abingdon, 2014) and (with F de Londras) Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorist Judicial Review (Cambridge University Press, Cambr idge, 2014).
Brice Dickson has been Professor of International and Comparative Law at Queen’s University Belfast since 2005. He served as the first Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2005. He currently serves as an independent member of the Norther n Ireland Policing Board and of the Privacy Advisory Committee of Nor thern Ireland’s Depar tment of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In recent years his publications have focused on judicial activism in the highest courts He is the editor of Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Cour ts (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007), co-editor of The Judicial House of Lords 1879–2009 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009), and author of The European Convention on Human Rights and the Conflict in Northern Ireland (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) and Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013). He is currently working on a study of the Supreme Court of Ireland.
Federico Fabbrini is Associate Professor of European & International Law at iCourts (Center of Excellence on International Cour ts) – Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen and he is the Coordinator of the Research Group on ‘Constitutional Responses to Ter rorism’ within the Inter national Association of Constitutional Law He holds a PhD in Law from the European University Institute and, before joining iCour ts, he was an Assistant Professor of European & Comparative Constitutional Law at Tilburg Law School. His major publications include (with D Cole andA Vedaschi) Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013), (with M Adams and P Larouche), The Constitutionalization of European Budgetary Constraints (Har t Publishing, Oxford, 2014), and Fundamental Rights in Europe: Challenges and Transformations in Comparative Perspective (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014).
Steven Greer is Professor of Human Rights at the University of Bristol Law School. He has taught at several UK univer sities, held visiting appointments in West Germany, Australia, and France, and delivered guest lectures and academic papers all over the world including the Middle East, China, and the US. He is Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, has acted as consultant/advisor to various organisations, and has published widely, particularly in the fields of criminal justice, human rights, and law and ter rorism. Two of his books, Supergrasses: A Study in Anti-Terrorist Law Enforcement in Northern Ireland (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995) and The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) were shortlisted for prizes
Oren Gross is the Ir ving Younger Professor of Law and the Director of the Institute for Inter national Legal & Secur ity Studies at the University of Minnesota Law School He is an internationally recognised exper t in the areas of international law and national security law. His book, Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice, co-authored with Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2006 and was awarded the prestigious Cer tificate of Merit for Preeminent Contribution to Creative Scholarship by the American Society of Inter national Law in 2007. His latest book (co-edited with Professor Ní Aoláin), Guantánamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative and Policy Perspective, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013 He is a member of both the New York and Israeli bars. In 2008 he was elected as a member of the American Law Institute (ALI).
Elspeth Guild is an internationally acknowledged expert in the field of European immigration law. She is Jean Monnet Professor of European Migration Law at the University of Nijmegen, Professor at Queen Mar y University of London and partner at Kingsley Napley LLP. She previously acted as Special Advisor to the House of Lords Inquir y into Economic Migration in the EU, and is cur rently involved in training judges in EU law. She is frequently requested to make submissions to parliamentar y committees on the subject and she acts as an occasional expert to international organisations such as the European Commission, UNHCR, and the Council of Europe.
Amos Guiora is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Global Justice at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, the Univer sity of Utah. Guiora, who teaches Criminal Procedure, Inter national Law, Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism and Religion and Terrorism incorporates innovative scenar io-based instr uction to address national and international security issues and dilemmas He is the author of , inter alia, Fundamentals of Counterterrorism; Constitutional Limits on Coercive Interrogation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008); Legitimate Target: A Criteria Based Approach to Targeted Killing; Freedom from Religion: Rights and National Secur ity (Oxford Univer sity Press, Oxford, 2013); Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism (2nd edn, Aspen, Denver, 2011); Homeland Security: What is it and Where is it Going (CRC, Boca Raton, 2011); Tolerating Intolerance: The Price of Protecting Extremism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013); and Geopolitics and Security: Sovereignty, Intervention and the Law (Taylor & Francis, London, 2013).
Saskia Hufnagel is a Lecturer in Criminal Law at Queen Mary University London. She previously worked as a Research Fellow at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, Gr iffith University, Australia, and was a Leverhulme Fellow at the University of Leeds. During the completion of her PhD she taught at the Australian National University (ANU) College of Law and between 2009 and 2011 she held a permanent teaching position at the University of Canberra. Her main research areas encompass law enforcement cooperation in Asia, North Amer ica, the EU, and Australasia, comparative constitutional and human rights law with a focus on terrorism legislation, and the policing of art cr ime. She has widely published on national and international police cooperation, security, comparative constitutional law, and art crime including Policing Cooperation Across Borders: Comparative Perspectives on Law Enforcement within the EU and Australia (Ashgate, Farnham, 2013) and the co-edited, Emergency Law (Ashgate, 2012) She is a qualified Ger man legal professional and accredited specialist in criminal law.
John Ip is a Senior Lecturer at the Univer sity of Auckland Faculty of Law and co-editor of the New Zealand Law Review His research interests are: counter-terrorism and constitutionalism, comparative counterterror ism law, and popular depictions of legal issues ar ising out of post9/11 counter-ter rorism
David Jenkins is an Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the Univer sity of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law. He is an attorney at law in the United States, and earned his JD from Washington and Lee Univer sity School of Law. In addition to MAs in both history and political science from Marshall University, he holds the LLM and Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) degrees from McGill University’s Institute of Comparative Law in Montréal. He has published multiple ar ticles regarding comparative constitutional law, with a focus on emergency theory, antiter rorism measures, and the separation of powers He co-edited The Long Decade: How 9/11 Changed the Law (Oxford Univer sity Press, Oxford, 2014).
Mordechai Kremnitzer is Vice President of Research at the Israel Democracy Institute, where he has been a Senior Fellow since 1994 and cur rently heads the following projects: Democratic Principles, National Secur ity and Democracy, Arab-Jewish Relations, and Proportionality in Public Policy He is Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew Univer sity of Jerusalem Faculty of Law and was Dean of the Faculty from 1990 to 1993. He studied law at the Hebrew Univer sity of Jer usalem, from which he received his PhD in 1980. During 1970 to 1977 he served in the Israel Defense Forces, inter alia as Deputy Chief Prosecutor and as a militar y judge Professor Kremnitzer has served as chair man of many public committees. He is also a member of the scientific advisor y board of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and Inter national Criminal Law in Freiburg, Ger many He has published extensively in the fields of criminal, military, and public law, including the co-authored Incitement, Not Sedition (Israel Democracy Institute, Jer usalem, 2002) and Basic Law: The Army – a Commentary (Sacher Institute, Jerusalem, 2000).
Tim Legrand is a Lecturer at the National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, Canber ra His research is concer ned with international policy transfer, evidence-based policy-making, and the domestic and transnational dimensions of security policy gover nance in the Anglosphere with particular focus on counter-terrorism and cr itical infrastructure protection. His research has been published in leading international journals including Public Administration, Policy Studies, British Politics, European Political Science, and the Jour nal of Comparative Policy Analysis. He is also the co-editor (with Professor Allan McConnell) of Emergency Policy (Ashgate, Far nham, 2012) and has contributed a number of chapters to edited collections Dr Legrand currently holds adjunct positions as Associate Professor at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the Univer sity of Canberra and Research Fellow at Griffith University.
Genevieve Lennon is Chancellor’s Fellow at the School of Law, Univer sity of Strathclyde. She holds a PhD in law from the Univer sity of Leeds Her research expertise lies in the areas of counter-terrorism law and policy, in particular in relation to human rights, accountability, and counter-terrorist policing. She has published and presented on various aspects of counterter rorism and policing. She was an invited attendee at Home Office/Homeland Security workshops on ‘Greenfield Aviation Security 2027’ (2010). She is currently co-authoring a monograph, Protective Security against Terrorism (Cambr idge University Press). She is on the editor ial board of Criminology and Cr iminal Justice.
Mariona Llobet-Anglí is Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona) and also at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. She is an expert on terrorism. Her doctoral thesis dealt with terrorism and the limits of ius puniendi in countries gover ned by the r ule of law (entitled Derecho Penal del Terrorismo, La Ley, Madrid, 2010). She has since published on ter ror ism and on other criminal law fields in specialised law jour nals and collective books. She has held a research fellowship at the New York University and the Università degli Studi di Milano and a visiting academic at universities in Spain and South Amer ica.
Stuart Macdonald is Associate Professor in Law and Deputy Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Criminology at Swansea. He is co-director of the multidisciplinary cyberter rorism research project (www.cyberterror ism-project.org) and co-editor of Cyberterrorism: Understanding, Assessment and Response (Springer, New York, 2014) (with L Jarvis and T Chen) and Ter rorism Online: Politics, Law and Technology (Routledge, Abingdon, 2015) (with L Jarvis and T Chen). His recent project on secur ity and liberty was funded by the British Academy, and he has held visiting scholar ships at Columbia University Law School, New York, and the Institute of Cr iminology at the Univer sity of Sydney
Simon McKay is a civil liberties lawyer who has acted and continues to act in a large number of high profile cases in the UK, including R v Clegg [1995] (British paratrooper accused of murder whilst on duty), the Por ton Down Inquir y (death of a serviceman from Sarin poisoning at defence human research establishment), the MPs expenses scandal, and the recent Supreme Court decision of R (BSkyB) v Metropolitan Police [2014] (secret hearings for purposes of obtaining production order s) He is a former legal adviser to the British government on national secur ity related issues. He is author of Covert Policing Law & Practice (2nd edn, Oxford Univer sity Press, 2015) and widely published in a number of peer-reviewed journals. He has co-written chapters (with C Walker) for the J Pear se (ed.), Investigating Terrorism (Wiley, Chichester, 2015) and is a contr ibuting author to the forthcoming Handbook of Intelligence Law (Boorberg Press, Stuttgar t)
Aniceto (Setu) Masferrer is Professor of Legal History at the Faculty of Law, University of Valencia. He has authored seven books and edited five (including Post 9/11 and the State of Permanent Legal Emergency (Spr inger, New York, 2012) and Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013)) and has written numerous articles published in Spanish, European, and Amer ican law jour nals. His main focus is on criminal law, codification, and fundamental r ights. He has been a visiting professor/scholar at a number of institutions, including the University of Cambridge and Harvard Law School. He is on the boards of several international law journals and is Chief Editor of GLOSSAE, European Journal of Legal History. He is president of the European Society for Comparative Legal History, and vice-president of the Fundación Universitas. He is Director of the Institute for Social, Political and Legal Studies, a member of the Spanish Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation, and of the Valencian Committee for European Affairs.
Jon Moran is Reader in Secur ity Studies at the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Leicester He is the author of Policing the Peace in Nor thern Ireland (Manchester University Press, 2008) and From Northern Ireland to Afghanistan. British Military Intelligence, Ethics and Human Rights (Ashgate, Farnham, 2013). His research interests are in the areas of secur ity, intelligence, and the state and civil liberties. He also retains an interest in
cor r uption and is the author of Crime and Corruption in New Democracies. The Politics of Insecurity (Palgrave, London, 2011)
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin holds the Dorsey and Whitney Chair in Law at the Univer sity of Minnesota Law School and is concurrently Professor of Law at Ulster University’s Transitional Justice Institute. Her book Law in Times of Crisis with Professor Oren Gross (Cambridge University Press, 2006) was awarded American Society of International Law’s Certificate of Merit for creative scholarship (2007) She is co-author of On the Frontlines: Gender, War and the Post Conflict Process (Oxford Univer sity Press, Oxford, 2011) and co-editor (with Gross), of Guantánamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative and Policy Perspective (Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambridge, 2013). She was appointed by the UN Secretar y-General as Special Exper t on promoting gender equality in times of conflict and peace-making (2003). The Irish gover nment has nominated her twice to the European Court of Human Rights (2004 and 2007). She served on the Executive Council of the American Society of International law from 2010 to 2013. She is Board Chair of the Open Society’s Women’s Program.
Anneke Petzsche is a Research Assistant and Lecturer at Humboldt-University, Berlin. She finished her PhD in 2013 on German, English, and Spanish anti-terrorism law for which she was awarded a scholar ship from the ‘Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes’. During 2011, she undertook research visits at the Univer sity of Leeds and the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Her PhD is titled Strafrecht und Terrorismusbekämpfung – Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Bekämpfung terroristischer Vorbereitungshandlungen in Deutschland, Großbritannien und Spanien and was published in 2013. She has also published var ious articles on the subject matter of terrorism and hosted together with Professor Heger an international ‘trialogue on terrorism’ at Humboldt University in January 2015.
Abdul Razak Ahmad is a qualified legal counsel, having trained in Malaysia, the UK, and Switzerland and practised as a solicitor with the firm of Battemberg and Talma in Singapore. He then retur ned to Malaysia to serve as an academic. He was later seconded to the Government of Malaysia where he served on the National Economic Action Council (NEAC) of the Prime Minister’s Department as a Consultant to the Special Consultancy Team on Globalisation. Abdul Razak also serves as an academic at the National Defence University Malaysia. His research interests cover international security, counter-terror ism policy, non-traditional security issues, mig ration, and public policy. On the inter national front, Abdul Razak currently serves as an advisor to the Government of Libya, a member of the Bahrain For um on Islam and Development, and is engaged by Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a resource specialist to help prepare the ASEAN Plan of Action for Counter-Terrorism.
Javaid Rehman is Professor of Islamic Law, Muslim Constitutionalism and Human Rights at Br unel University London. He is also the director of the Brunel University Research Centre: Security, Media and Human Rights During 2009 to 2013, Professor Rehman was the Head of School of Law, Brunel Univer sity and a member of Brunel University Senior Management. Professor Rehman has wr itten extensively on the subject of Islamic Law, international human r ights, and minor ity rights, with over 100 publications to his credit. His recent works include Islamic State Practices, International Law and the Threat from Terrorism (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2005), (with SC Breau) (eds) Religion, Human Rights and International Law (Nijhoff,
Contributors
Dordrecht, 2007), and International Human Rights Law (2nd edn, Longman, London, 2010). He is on the editorial boards of several jour nals.
Kent Roach FRSC, holds the Pr ichard Wilson Chair in Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto He is the author of 12 books including September 11: Consequences for Canada (McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2003), The Unique Challenges of Terrorism Prosecutions (Government of Canada, Ottawa, 2010) and The 9/11 Effect: Comparative CounterTer ror ism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). Among other volumes, he is the editor of Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, 2015) and co-editor of Global Anti-Terrorism Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) as well as many ar ticles on terrorism-related topics published in Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, and South Africa. He served on the research advisory committee for Canada’s inquiry into the rendition of Maher Arar to Syria and as research director (legal studies) for its inquiry into the bombing of Air India Flight 182.
Lina Saba-Habesch studied law at the Hebrew University, where she completed both her bachelor and MA degrees. She did her internship at the Criminal Depar tment of the prosecutor office in Haifa and practised law as a prosecutor there for another three years before moving to Jerusalem. Soon afterwards, she joined the Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI). At the IDI, she worked as a research assistant to Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer on a project titled ‘Ter ror and Democracy’. She is cur rently studying for a PhD in a joint program between the Hebrew University in Jer usalem and FRI University in Berlin on detention of secur ity suspects.
Ben Saul is Professor of Inter national Law and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow at the Univer sity of Sydney Ben has exper tise on terrorism, human rights, armed conflict, the use of force, international cr imes, the environment, and the UN. He is the author of Defining Ter ror ism in Inter national Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006), lead co-author of The Inter national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014), and editor of Research Handbook on International Law and Ter ror ism (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2014) He has published ten books, 80 scholarly articles, and his research has been used in numerous courts. He has taught at Oxford, The Hague Academy of International Law, and in China, India, Nepal, and Cambodia, and has been a visiting professor at Har vard. He practises as a barrister, has advised UN bodies, governments and non-governmental organisations, and often appear s in the media. He has a doctorate from Oxford and honours degrees in Arts and Law from Sydney.
Joshua Skoczylis is a Lecturer in Cr iminology at the University of Lincoln researching and teaching on terror ism, policing, and prevention. He has recently received his PhD from the Univer sity of Leeds, focusing on counter-terrorism policing and prevention. Prior to this he read for an MSc in Cr iminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Oxford and also read for a BA on the same subject at the University of Central Lancashire. He continues to work in the field of Criminal Justice as a Magistrate and currently serves on the Lincolnshire Bench. He previously worked as a Special Constable for Mer seyside Police and for local authorities in Blackburn.
Peter Sproat is Lecturer in Policing at the University of the West of Scotland. His research interests include anti-money-launder ing and counter-terrorist finance, the policing of organised
cr ime, and ter rorism. He has published peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on these topics and other s including asset recovery, on ter rorism, genocide, and the r ight to self-deter mination in inter national law
Mark G Stewart is Professor of Civil Engineer ing and Director of the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia and an Australian Research Council Professor ial Fellow. He is the author, with RE Melchers, of Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineer ing Systems (Chapman & Hall, London, 1997), and more than 300 technical paper s and repor ts He has more than 25 years of experience in probabilistic risk and vulnerability assessment of infrastr ucture and security systems that are subject to man-made and natural hazards. He has received over $3 million in Australian Research Council (ARC) support in the past 10 years. Since 2004, Mark has received extensive ARC support to develop probabilistic risk-modelling techniques for infrastructure subject to military and terrorist explosive blasts and cost-benefit assessments of counter-ter ror ism protective measures for critical infrastr ucture. In 2011, he received a five-year Australian Professorial Fellowship from the ARC to continue and to extend that work.
Lyal S Sunga is Special Advisor on Human Rights and Humanitar ian Law at the International Development Law Organization in Rome, and Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Lund. From 1994 to 2001, he worked for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, and then taught at the Univer sity of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. In 2007, he served as Coordinator for the UN Human Rights Council’s Group of Experts on Darfur. Over the last 25 years, he has worked or consulted with the UN Secur ity Council, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Democracy Fund, United Nations University, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, United Nations Institute for Training and Research, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the International Labour Organization, EU and International Development Law Organization as well as with several national human r ights commissions. He has authored two books: Individual Responsibility in Inter national Law for Ser ious Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff , The Hague, 1992) and The Emerging System of International Cr iminal Law (Martinus Nijhoff , The Hague, 1997)
Steve Swain is a retired Chief Super intendent from the Metropolitan Police; his last post was as the Head of the Police Inter national Counter Terrorist Unit (PICTU), a joint national police and MI5 unit, with responsibility for designing counter-ter rorist policing options for the UK. He has a substantial breadth and depth of exper ience in the security and counter-terrorism field and is currently engaged in a number of ventures across the security sector. These include helping secur ity sector small and medium-sized enter prises gain more traction and visibility in the marketplace, working with a software company on business development in the law enforcement sector, a subject matter exper t on two terrorism-related EU 7th Framework Programme (FP7) security projects, deliver ing two BTEC certificated courses – one on Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity and one on Security Management – for a UK-based training company, and under taking security strategy development and risk assessment for a London-based architectural design company.
Stephen I Vladeck is a Professor of Law at Amer ican University Washington College of Law and co-Editor-in-Chief of the Just Security blog. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. A nationally recognised expert on the
role of the federal courts in the war on ter rorism, Vladeck’s prolific and widely cited scholarship has appeared in an array of legal publications – including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal – and his popular writing has been published in forums ranging from the New York Times to BuzzFeed Vladeck, who is a co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading national secur ity law and counter-terrorism law casebooks, is a 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, and received a BA summa cum laude in Histor y and Mathematics from Amherst College in 2001, where his senior thesis examined ‘Leipzig's Shadow: The War Crimes Trials of the Fir st World War and Their Implications from Nuremberg to the Present’.
Clive Walker is Professor Emer itus of Cr iminal Justice Studies at the School of Law, University of Leeds, where he served as the Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies (1987–2000) and as Head of School (2000–2005, 2010). He has written extensively on terrorism issues, with many published papers and books not only in the UK but also in many other jurisdictions, especially Australia and the US, where he has been a visiting professor at George Washington, Melbour ne, New South Wales, and Stanford Universities. He has served as special adviser to the UK Parliamentar y select committee system and is also Special Adviser to the UK Independent Reviewer of Ter ror ism Legislation. His main books related to terrorism and emergencies include The Civil Contingencies Act 2004: Risk, Resilience and the Law in the United Kingdom (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006); Terrorism and the Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011); and The Anti-Terrorism Legislation (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014). Contributors
Preface
Among the magnetic qualities of terror ism are its capacity to distor t the compass of anyone who is attracted to it, for bad reasons or for good. Policy-makers neglect orthodox cost-benefit tools, devoting ever more resources to the unattainable goal of zero risk. Parliaments stretch the limits of police power s, or for mulate cr iminal offences when none would normally exist. The media accords to ‘ter ror ’ an air of lur id panic never attributed to organised cr ime or even to homicide.
Four ‘P’s for m the backbone of the UK’s much-imitated counter-ter rorism strategy, and of this Handbook: Pur sue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare The second of those is the most important in the long run, for whilst ter ror ist movements all come to an end eventually, neither law enforcement, nor target-hardening nor resilience can achieve this without a change to hearts and minds. However, the proper role of Government in preventing ter rorism is hotly debated: all the more so as techniques such as bulk data analysis and the stationing of informers by the supposed ‘ conveyor belt to radicalisation’ take it closer to a fifth, and as yet unacknowledged, ‘P’: Predict.
Yet the threat cannot be dismissed as unreal. Had the viable transatlantic bomb plot of 2006 been successful, thousands of air passengers would have lost their lives, with who knows what consequences Low-level separatist and sectarian conflicts – or their after-shocks, as in Nor thern Ireland – continue to claim lives and promote insecurity across the world. Thousands of young Muslims in Europe show their support for the grotesque savageries of groups such as ISIL, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram, whether by travelling to join in, or by plotting, atrocities on the home front.
To function reliably in these swirling magnetic fields, any legal or ethical compass must be well-shielded against distor tion. It is difficult to imagine a book better adapted to that purpose than this one Its histor ical and comparative perspectives and the sheer breadth of its range lend it weight and authority. It will be a vital tool not just for scholar s but for legislator s, policymakers and practitioners everywhere.
David Anderson QC
Independent Reviewer of Terror ism Legislation, London
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
Genevieve Lennon and Clive Walker
Framing the law and terrorism
Triggering events
Ter ror ism laws have proliferated since the events of 9/11. Those attacks were deemed to demonstrate to the world not only a heightened risk of ter rorism but also need for imperative action by all states. That message was promulgated immediately by the United Nations Security Council which, by Resolution 1368 on 12 September 2001, ‘Call … on the inter national community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress ter rorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant inter national anti-ter ror ist conventions…’ Fur ther details followed in Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001, which required compliance with international laws against ter ror ism financing, the passage of domestic laws against recr uitment and other forms of support, no safe havens, and the institution of the CounterTer ror ism Committee (CTC) to chivvy national implementation. This intervention demanded a substantial augmentation of pre-existing requirements to impose economic sanctions on those linked to the Taliban and Al Qa’ida.1 The inter national clamour for action by no means ended in 2001, and aside from the ongoing activities of the CTC, new demands have been issued in 2005 for laws against the incitement and glorification of terrorism2 and in 2014 against the phenomenon of foreign ter rorist fighters being exported to theatres of conflict such as Iraq and Syria.3 Expressions of concer n about the impact on human rights have tended to take longer to develop, whether in inter national or domestic laws.4
Leaving aside to other works the development and implementation of the inter national law against terror ism,5 this Handbook focuses upon the domestic law reactions to terrorism that
1 See UNSCR 1267 of 15 October 1999, as amended by UNSCR 1333 of 19 December 2000 and UNSCR 1989 of 17 June 2011.
2 See UNSCR 1624 of 14 September 2005.
3 See UNSCR 2178 of 24 September 2014
4 See UNSCR 1456 of 20 January 2003. See also UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/80, appointing the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
5 See AM Salinas de Frías, K Samuel and N White, Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012); B Saul (ed.), Research Handbook On International Law and Ter ror ism (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2014)
Genevieve Lennon and Clive Walker
have flowed from these trigger ing events. Our mission is to deliver an authoritative, comprehensive, and critical analysis of how laws are, and ought to be, invoked in domestic jurisdictions against terrorism. In furtherance of that objective, we shall next consider the framing concepts that have impacted on the manifold reactions of states.
Potential framing concepts
In the days after 9/11, it seemed that a binar y between either ‘Total War on Terror’ or ‘Total Counter-Terrorism’ was presented as the fundamental frameworks to be selected. The ‘Total War on Terrorism’ was adopted as the headline US reaction by President George W Bush on 20 September 2001:6
Our war on terror begins with al Qaida, but will not end until every ter rorist group has been found, stopped and defeated… And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe havens to terrorists. Ever y nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are with the ter ror ists.
The rhetoric of this ‘Global War on Ter ror’, as it became known, has been considerably toned down since President Obama assumed office in 2009.7 But, with drones still busy and detention facilities in Guantánamo Bay still populated, the overall stance cannot yet be depicted as ‘postwar’ 8 Other countr ies too have played a part in the ‘Total War on Terror’, especially by participating in the conflict in Afghanistan (and latterly in Iraq and Syria against Islamic State) and also by facilitating US activities relating to irregular rendition and detention.9 Conversely, the alternative approach of br inging ter rorist leaders before international criminal courts remains untested, albeit that the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, considered that crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute 1998, ar ticle 7, had been perpetrated on 9/11.10 However, even in the US,11 domestic counter-ter ror ism laws have been reinforced (especially by the USA PATRIOT Act 2001),12 and it is this option of ‘Total Counter-Terrorism’ that is explored in this book reflecting, overall, a drift from the ‘Total War on Terror’ to ‘Total Counter-Terror ism’.
Before exploring further, it might be questioned whether this drift from one approach to another is desirable or not On the one hand, militar y deployment against ter rorism can enjoy some advantages. It meets some public and media expectations for severe and punitive action,
6 Address to a Joint Session of Congress, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/ releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html accessed 20 December 2014.
7 See Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Close of Detention Facilities and for a Review of Detention Policy Options Executive Orders 13492 and 13493 (74 Federal Register 4897 and 4901)
8 Compare RM Chesney, ‘Postwar’ (2014) 5 Harvard National Security Journal 305.
9 For indications of the scale of this activity, see Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (Washington DC, 2014).
10 M Robinson, Five Years on from 9/11 (JUSTICE, London, 2006) 4.
11 See JD Shipman, ‘Taking terror ism to court’ (2008) 86 North Carolina Law Review 526. However, there are restraints on the extent to which ‘Total Counter-Terrorism’ can replace the ‘Total War on Terror’: see National Defense Author ization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, s 1032 (‘Prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba’), PL 111–383.
12 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (PL 107–56).
which may foment dissent and deterrence amongst the terrorists. On the other hand, the ‘Total War on Terrorism’ approach tends to involve blunt military instruments, the effectiveness of which can be questioned. Recently, the House of Commons Defence Committee repor t, Secur ing the Future of Afghanistan, concluded that after a decade or so of involvement, ‘The best the UK can do is to withdraw in good order and engage with external par tners to improve the chances of Afghanistan going forward.’13 Likewise, President Karzai mused in October 2013 about a f ailed mission that had left his country unstable.14 This mode of approach is also highly controversial because of its disregard for the regular safeguards of civil society and inter national law.15 The doctrine of the ‘Global War on Terror’ was consequently rejected by the UK former Foreign Secretar y, David Miliband, who stated that ‘the notion is misleading and mistaken. The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of ter ror at its roots, with all the tools available. We must. The question is how.’16
The ‘Total Counter-Ter ror ism’ approach is meant to reflect some recognition of the importance of broader concepts of ‘human security’.17 One might find some resonance here with more philosophical approaches to the meanings of security as sûreté and securité, translated as notions that by sûreté, citizens gain secur ity only through Hobbesian sovereign power, whereas that sûreté can threaten the securité of the individual in the Lockean perspective of a citizen requiring protection against the state.18
In order to impose a clear and coherent framework upon the deliver y of ‘Total CounterTer rorism ’ in su bs t an ce, t h is book adopts a policy-driven s tr ategic a pproach. Counter-terrorism strategic policy provides for the most rational and coherent way of making sense of the relevant laws, even though this basis for rationalisation is post hoc, given that crisis events have often been the true prompt for new laws. One of the clearest and most sophisticated expositions of domesticated counter-terrorism strategy can be found in the UK’s Counter ing International Ter rorism strategy documentation (‘CONTEST’), which was first published in 2006.19 Deliver y of the strategy continues to be organised around four principal workstreams as follows:
• Pursue: to stop terrorist attacks
• Prevent: to stop people becoming ter rorists or supporting violent extremism.
• Protect: to strengthen our protection against ter rorist attack
• Prepare: where an attack cannot be stopped, to mitigate its impact.
The CONTEST framework has been highly influential, being reflected, if not reproduced wholesale, elsewhere.Thus, the European Union Counter Terrorism Strategy 2005 commits the EU ‘[t]o combat terrorism globally while respecting human r ights, and make Europe safer,
13 (2012–13 HC 412) para 151
14 T Coghlan, ‘Your troops died in vain’, says Karzai, as he castigates allies; Afghanistan ‘remains unstable and insecure’ The Times (London, 8 October 2013) 8.
15 See Allen, FA, The Habits of Legality (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996) 37–40.
16 The Guardian (London, 15 January 2009), 29
17 See A Zwitter, Human Security, Law and the Prevention of Terrorism (Routledge, Abingdon, 2010).
18 See M Foucault, Securité, Territoire, Population (Seuil, Paris, 2004).
19 Home Office, Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Inter national Terrorism (Cm 7547, London, 2009) para 7.07. See also Home Office, Countering Inter national Terrorism (Cm 6888, London, 2006), The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Inter national Terrorism (Cm 7833, London, 2010), (Cm 8123, London, 2011), (Cm 8583, London, 2013), (Cm 8848, London, 2014)
allowing its citizens to live in an area of freedom, secur ity and justice’.20 While Member States retain the pr imary responsibility for combating terror ism, the EU role is important and comprises: strengthening national capabilities; facilitating European cooperation; developing collective capability; and promoting inter national partnership.The Strategy is divided into the four pillars: ‘Prevent’, ‘Protect’, ‘Pursue’, and ‘Respond’.This taxonomy sounds ver y redolent of the CONTEST approach and in substance is identical since ‘Respond’ covers the ‘Prepare’ agenda.
Next, the US National Strategy for Combating Ter rorism 2006 adopts short-term goals, including killing or captur ing terror ists, denying havens and material resources, as well as strengthening resilience (mainly the task of the Department for Homeland Security); the longterm project is to win the battle of ideas, ultimately by ‘the advancement of freedom and human dignity through effective democracy’.21 In this way, ‘Pursuit’, ‘Protect/Prepare’, and ‘Prevent’ are reflected, though the means adopted reveal some marked differences because of the rhetoric of ‘the war on ter ror’ and its later modulations.
Finally, there is the United Nations Global Counter Ter rorism Strategy 2006.22 That document places great emphasis on addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of ter rorism and state capacity building that must be placed alongside the military and policing measures to prevent and combat terrorism, which were emphasised in September 2001. It also cr ucially encompasses in Par t IV ‘Measures to ensure respect for human rights for all and the r ule of law as the fundamental basis of the fight against ter rorism’, the absence of which from the mechanisms put in place in 2001 has been an enduring criticism. Overall, the United Nations Global Counter Ter ror ism Strategy 2006 betrays more similarities than differences to the UK’s CONTEST strategy, though it does emphasise that ‘Pursuit’ and so on must be set within a ‘human secur ity’ context ,which gives emphasis to the root causes of terrorism. The concept of human secur ity remains controversial and has not been broadly incorporated into national legal policy, and so it will be tackled in the context of ‘Prevent’ rather than as a distinct strategy.
The canvass on which the laws of ‘Total Counter-Terrorism’ have been inscribed since UNSCR 1373 is vast and complex, so that ‘Total Counter-Ter rorism’ has reached the four corners of the world.23 Some indication has already been given of US-based reactions, which have varied from Presidential Militar y Orders24 pursuant to the ‘Total War on Ter ror ’ through to detailed legislation, such as the USA PATRIOT Act 2001,25 which is designed to bolster
20 (14469/05, Strasbourg, 2005) 2. See further the six monthly reports of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator on the Implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan to Combat Terrorism (9809/1/05, 14734/1/05, 15704/05, 9589/06, 15266/06, 9666/07, 15411/07, 9416/08, 14862/08, 15912/08, 9715/09, 15538/09) and the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy—discussion paper (15359/09).
21 (Washington DC, 2006) 8. The original version was published in 2003.
22 UNGA Res 60/288.
23 So u rc e mat e r ials m ay be found at: OSCE Legisl ati on Onl in e w ww. le gis latio nl ine.o rg / topics/topic/5; UN CTC www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/resources/countr yrepor ts.html; UN ODC www.unodc.org/tldb/laws_legislative_database.html accessed 20 December 2014
24 See Presidential Military Order, Detention,Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 13 November 2001. See further Executive Order 13492, Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities (22 January 2009); Executive Order 13493, Review of Detention Policy Options (22 January 2009).
25 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Ter ror ism Act of 2001 (PL 107–56) See further Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108–458)
sur veillance, protective secur ity, and cr iminal prosecutions. The neighbours of the US have been expected to follow suit, and Canada has been an active26 and sometimes overly compliant27 par tner. Within Europe, there is a contrast not so much between common law and civil law jurisdictions but rather between jur isdictions that had already experienced a long pre-9/11 history of terror ism28 and those that have been (often reluctant) latecomers to the field.29 The message that specialist counter-ter rorism laws are obligator y has also reached Africa,30 Asia,31 and Australasia,32 though it has sometime taken prolonged pressure to achieve results.33
26 See Anti-Terror ism Act 2001; Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act 2014.
27 See Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar (Ottawa, 2006).
28 Those in this categor y include: France (see Loi no 86-1020 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme, 9 September 1986; Loi no 96-647 tendant à renforcer la répression du ter rorisme et des atteintes aux personnes dépositaires de l’autorité publique ou chargées d’une mission de ser vice public et compor tant des dispositions relatives à la police judiciaire, 22 July 1996; Law no. 2001-1062 relative à la sécur ité quotidienne, 15 November 2001; Loi no 2003-239 pour la sécur ité intérieure, 18 March 2003; Loi no. 2006-64 relative à la lutte contre le ter ror isme et portant dispositions diverses relatives à la sécur ité et aux contrôles frontalier s, 23 Januar y 2006); Ireland (Offences against the State Acts 1939-72; Cr iminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005; Cr iminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010); Italy (Legge no 438 Conver sione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 18 ottobre 2001, no 374, recante disposizioni urgenti per contrastare il terrorismo internazionale, 15 December 2001; Legge no 155 Conver sione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto legge 27 luglio 2005, no 144, recante misure urgenti per il contrasto del terrorismo internazionale, 31 July 2005); Russia (Federal Law No. 115-FZ On Counter ing Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, 7 August 2001; Presidential Decree No 6 On measures to fulfill the resolution of the UN Security Council No 1373 adopted 28 September 2001, 10 January 2002; Federal Law No. 114 FZ on combating of extremist activity 2002; Federal Law No. 35-FZ on Counteraction of Ter ror ism, 6 March 2006); Spain (Ley Orgánica 7/2000, sobre la responsabilidad penal de los menores, en relación con los delitos de terror ismo, 22 December 2000; Ley Orgánica de Partidos Políticos 6/2002, 27 June 2002; Ley de prevención y bloqueo de la financiación del terror ismo no 12/2003, 21 May 2003; UK (Terror ism Act 2000; Anti terror ism, Crime and Security Act 2001; Ter ror ism Act 2006; Counter Terror ism Act 2008)
29 Those in this category might include: Germany (Gesetz zur Bekämpfung des internationalen Terror ismus (Terror ismusbekämpfungsgesetz), 14 December 2001; Gesetz zur Errichtung einer standardisierten zentralen Antiterrordatei von Polizeibehörden und Nachrichtendiensten von Bund und Ländern (Antiterrordateigesetz - ATDG), 22 December 2006; Gesetz zur Erganzung des Terror ismusbekampfungsgesetzes (Ter ror ismusbekampfungserganzungsgesetz) 5 January 2007; Gesetz zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten, 30 July 2009); Netherlands (Act of 24 June 2004 to amend and supplement the Penal Code and some other laws in connection with terrorist crimes (Crimes of Terrorism Act); Investigation and Prosecution of Ter rorist Offences (Extension of Powers) Act 2006; Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act 2008); Sweden (Lag om straff för terroristbrott, 24 April 2003; Lag om straff för offentlig uppmaning, rekrytering och utbildning avseende terroristbrott och annan särskilt allvarlig brottslighet, 11 May 2010).
30 See Ethiopia (Anti Ter rorism Proclamation No. 652/2009); Nigeria (Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011); South Afr ica (Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 2004).
31 See China (Amendment III to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, 29 December 2001); India (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967); Malaysia (Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012).
32 See Australia (Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Act 2002, Border Security Legislation Amendment Act 2002, Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Act 2002, Anti Terror ism Act 2004, Anti-Terror ism Act (No. 2) 2005); New Zealand (Terrorism Suppression Act 2002).
33 See Kuwait (Law No 106 of 2013 Regarding Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terror ism); Vietnam (Counter-Terrorism Law, No. 28/2013/QH13).
In response, some authors have attempted to draw up similarities and differences between laws on a global scale,34 or in the common law sphere,35 or in civil law systems 36 Many more have adopted thematic approaches, such as relationships between counter-terrorism laws and human rights, or the role and impact of the judiciary or other branches of state.37 Our own favoured approach tends towards the thematic. Given the scale of law-making since 9/11, it would not be an availing approach to attempt to cover in one book ever y jur isdiction (or even ever y ‘leading’ jurisdiction) or every manifestation of counter-terrorism laws. As a result, our main focus will be on some of those jurisdictions that have taken the lead in producing legal innovations and setting legal standards, but, within that context, we shall adopt a thematic approach to the substance of counter-terrorism law, examining categorical approaches rather than specific instances. We shall equally place emphasis upon critical commentaries not only from academic commentator s but also from official reviews, whether by specially appointed national reviewers38 or committees or by international officers such as the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering ter rorism.
Scheme of book contents
This Handbook builds upon, but does not purely or exclusively reproduce, the boundaries set by the UK’s CONTEST documentation. Instead it amalgamates the variations in these different statements of policy-dr iven strategies It will use ‘Prevent’, ‘Prepare’, ‘Protect’, and ‘Pursue’ as shorthand for the strategic objectives that have been discussed. Adapting therefore from CONTEST, this Handbook is divided into four Parts: ‘The boundaries and strategies of national counter-terror ism laws’; ‘The pursuit of terrorists by criminal process and executive measures ’ ; ‘Protective secur ity’; and ‘Preventive measures’.
Part I: The
boundaries and strategies of national counter-terrorism laws
Part I will set out the boundaries and strategies relevant to counter-terrorism. A fundamental boundar y that applies, no matter which strategies and consequent tactics are adopted, relates to the definition of ‘terrorism’. This is explored in Chapter 2 that examines how ‘terrorism’ came to be conceived of as a legal concept in the mid-twentieth century, expanding across states that experienced national liberation or separatist violence through, in the 1970s and 1980s, to states confronting extreme left-wing or political violence. The chapter charts the various – ultimately
34 See VV Ramraj and others (eds), Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy (2nd ed, Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambr idge, 2012)
35 See LK Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty (Cambridge University Press, Cambr idge, 2008); K Roach, The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism (Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambr idge, 2011)
36 See A Oehmichen, Terrorism and Anti-Terror Legislation (Intersentia, Antwerp, 2009); M Wade and A Maljevic, A War on Terror? (Spr inger, New York, 2010); A Masferrer and C Walker (eds), Countering Ter ror ism and Crossing Legal Boundaries: Comparative Studies of the Responses to Terrorism and their Categorical Impacts (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013).
37 See C Gearty, Liber ty and Security (Polity, Cambridge, 2013).
38 See especially the work of the Australian Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (w ww.dp mc.g ov.au /pmc/ab out-pmc /co re -p ri or it i es /n a ti on al - se c ur it y- a nd-i nternati onalpolicy/independent-national-security-leg islation-monitor accessed 20 December 2014) and of the UK I ndepen de nt Reviewer of Te r ror is m L e gi sl at i on (h tt p s: // te r rorismlegislation reviewer.independent.gov.uk/ accessed 20 December 2014).
Genevieve Lennon and Clive Walker
futile – attempts at obtaining an inter national consensus on the definition, and the use of sectoral counter-terror ism measures Turning then to conceptions of ter rorism since 9/11, measures by the UN Secur ity Council and the question of whether ter rorism is a customary international crime are considered alongside analysis of the trends in terms of national legal definitions of ter rorism. While a definition serves various functions, including demonstrating societal condemnation and tr igger ing special powers, legal definitions car r y g reat risks to human rights. Additional discussion of the definitions of terrorism in par ticular jurisdictions and their impact in relation to Pur suit, Prevent, Protect, and Prepare is found across the collection Drawing in particular on the work of Schmitt and Agamben,39 it has been argued that no limits should be placed on the state’s efforts at self-preservation in the face of exceptional threats. This question of what, if any, limits should be placed on the state in its fight against terrorism, and how the often conflicting objectives of individual freedoms should be weighed against collective secur ity is examined through the lens of the Spanish and British experiences of , and legal reactions, to ter rorism in Chapter 3 with a focus on the adoption, in both jurisdictions, of the ‘cr iminal law of the enemy’.40 This deviation from the ‘cr iminal law of the citizen’ removes terrorist suspects from regular criminal norms and precepts, viewing them solely as sources of danger Examples include pre-emptive powers, the curbing of procedural r ights, and the sever ity of sentencing. Such ‘enemy’ law car ries significant risks for the conscionable treatment of individuals and the legitimacy of the liberal democratic state. Another boundary, albeit one which has been becoming more blur red, is that between war and ter rorism. Chapter 4 examines this increasingly porous interface, analysing the consequences that flow from framing counter-terror ism as war, under the law of armed conflict, or of war as counter-terrorism The examination of detention, particularly as practised by the allied forces in Iraq and by the US in Guantánamo, use of force and prosecutions reveals the melding (if not confusion) of the law of ar med conflict and international human rights law. The chapter highlights the lessening of individual r ights as persons are tried, detained, and subject to force, with persons often receiving less protection because of an arbitrar y declaration of status and war ns that the substitution of counter-terrorism for armed conflict undermines the core objectives of the regulation of warfare and states of violence by inter national law. Chapter 5 examines how the definition of ter ror ism upon which these boundaries are constructed has migrated between nations, across time and space, allowing identification of trends and consequential derivations Par ticular focus is paid to the impact of the UK, Egyptian, and EU’s definition of terrorism. While transnational bodies, such as the UN Security Council, the EU, and the Financial Action Task Force have encouraged, if not mandated, such migration, the der ivations that arise from local political, historical, legal, or social cultures often leads to unexpected consequences Rather than treating transplantation as failed attempts at harmonisation, it is important to recognise counter-terrorism law as a major site of domestic politics and sovereignty.
The remainder of Par t I consider s the ‘boundaries’ of individual rights and constitutional accountability, which set part of the analytical and critical agenda for all later chapters. Individual human r ights have been prominently contested in response to legal coercive and sur veillant powers, and much work has been carried out since 9/11 on how rights can co-exist within societies that have become more risk aver se and less caring of the treatment of minorities. In a liberal democracy at least, the ultimate test of success or failure of strategies
39 See C Schmitt, Political Theology (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1985); G Agamben, The State of Exception (Univer sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2005)
40 See G Jakobs and MC Melia, Criminal Law of the Enemy (2nd edn, Civitas, Madrid, 2006).
against terror ism is the maintenance of public support while at the same time respecting the fundamental values on which legitimacy and consensus cohere. Respect for rights is a major source of confidence building both for individuals and for communities. Commentator s often talk about the ‘balance’ between r ights and counter-terror ism. However, given that the state has a general duty to protect life, the position is rather more complex than this model of binary displacement would suggest. Tr ying to work out a satisfactory cohabitation between rights and counter-terrorism has also been an abiding task for the courts and has excited much scholarly literature. Chapter 6 explores this interface, analysing law and policy from the UK, US, UN, and EU. The chapter fir st details the impact of counter-ter rorism financing, the surveillance, detention, and interrogation of ter ror ist suspects on a variety of human rights, ranging from the prohibition on torture through to the r ights of free speech and assembly. It then considers the effectiveness of the judiciary in curbing these infringements of rights, providing examples of successes and failures. One other aspect of constitutionalism, democratic accountability, has been hobbled both by inevitable executive claims to national security as a justification for dampening oversight and also by the often corporatist and informal modes of engagement between powerful stakeholders and the state. The obstacles and achievements will be covered in Chapter 7 that analyses, in the UK, US, and Canada, the scrutiny of counter-terrorism laws during the legislative process and the oversight of such laws after enactment through nonjudicial mechanisms, including Parliamentary Committees, the use of sunset clauses, and review bodies, such as the US Inspectors General. Among the challenges discussed are: par ty loyalty and electoral incentives; issues of scope, both in terms of recommendations made and review coverage; the lack of enforcement mechanisms, with recommendations simply ignored by the government; and, cher r y picking where only some recommendations are adopted. The chapter concludes by calling for a network of accountability that includes judicial review alongside non-judicial mechanisms and side-steps the ar tificial dichotomy between legislatures and the cour ts, judicial and non-judicial processes, and politics and law. The final chapter in Par t I examines legal accountability over counter-ter rorism laws. The traditional deference of the cour ts in national secur ity litigation is affected by factors such as access to information and executive claims to exper tise. Nevertheless, the performance of the courts since 9/11 has not been as weak as might have been predicted, though with some notable variations between jurisdictions. Chapter 8 argues that success in the judiciary’s contribution to countering ter rorism is best examined in ter ms of legitimacy and effectiveness. The chapter distinguishes between terrorist suspects, counter-ter rorism operatives, law enforcers, and law-makers, arguing that courts are most effective and legitimate when dealing with law enforcers and terrorist suspects. It then considers the impact of express compared with implied powers, before considering whether any topics should be placed beyond the scrutiny of judges.
Part II: The pursuit of terrorists by criminal process and executive measures
The ‘Pursuit’ element will be the theme for Par t II of the Handbook. Part II will be the largest section of the book because of its prominence as the paradigm legal approach and also because it has generated so much scholarly commentar y. The foundation of ‘Pursuit’ in intelligencegathering is crucial since that data can form the basis not only for general pre-emptive action but also for the individual application of criminal justice disposals or alternative executive measures. As a result, the first task of Part II is to explore some of the ways in which the law allows data about ter rorism to be gathered before moving to the issue of how it is used. This cr ucial stage engages three chapters Chapter 9 examines the different functions of intelligence and the corresponding issues around state power and accountability in relation to the UK,
inquiring into how law can regulate intelligence activities. The chapter opens with a historical analysis of the role of surveillance and intelligence-gathering historically in the UK from the sixteenth centur y to contemporary times This reveals the development of four key debates around surveillance: what power s of sur veillance should the state have; how sur veillance intelligence relates to the for mal legal arena; the pur pose of surveillance; and, the dangers of blur ring the lines between intelligence and evidence. The chapter then assesses how these debates have played out in contemporar y law and practice which reveal excessive state power framed by ‘ a broad and loose legal framework’ with little accountability. Among the most concerning developments is the erosion of the distinction between intelligence and evidence. Chapter 10 next analyses the growing use of ‘dataveillance’, examining what it means, sketching the rapid development in data production and gathering over the past four decades, how it is used, and its effectiveness in countering terrorism, focusing on mass dataveillance and its predictive capabilities in relation to patter n-based queries. Two main difficulties emerge: modelling and the possibility of f alse negatives. It then considers the right to pr ivacy and its interaction with dataveillance, arguing that privacy is often drawn too nar rowly and that a more nuanced conception of the r ight is needed to properly balance it against the security needs in relation to dataveillance. The third leg of data gather ing, the most overt and most regulated, concerns policing power s of detention and inter rogation. Chapter 11 compares detention and interrogation in the US and UK under the criminal justice and the militar y paradigms. The US’s cr iminal justice approach contains few deviations specific to ter rorist investigations. While the militar y paradigm is more flexible, one of the greatest challenges is whether there are any limitations on the government taking advantage of both paradigms. The UK has a welldeveloped series of exceptions to the standard of arrest, length of pre-charge detention, and to rules of interrogation applicable to terrorist investigations within the criminal justice system. The militar y paradigm is coming under increasing judicial scrutiny in the UK with judges insisting on adding a layer of inter national humanitarian law. A final topic that is linked to the effectiveness of policing powers concer ns how global policing and security structures and relations have been altered since 9/11 to cope with terrorism. These changes, along with the expansion of cross-border linkages, will be tackled in Chapter 12, which reveals how most global counter-terror ist policing str uctures are practitioner driven and largely informal with legal regulations playing only a minor role. Interpol, the European Police Office (Europol), and the Police Working Group on Ter ror ism are subjected to detailed analysis. Notwithstanding the significant increase in for mal str uctures, practitioners continue to rely on separate or supplemental infor mal mechanisms, such as the system of liaison officers. This suggests that implementing effective regulation of transnational policing will be problematic as the more countries with differing standards involved in counter-terrorism cooperation, the more likely it is that informal mechanisms will dominate strategies, although g reater oversight is possible at the regional level.
Once the necessary incr iminating information about terrorism has been obtained, and subject to admissibility, the cr iminal prosecution path is often viewed as the most legitimate response for a state to implement by way of the ‘Pur suit’ of ter rorists. For example, criminalisation was set down as a policy goal for the UK (in the context of Norther n Ireland) as long ago as the Diplock Repor t in 1972.41 However, this approach does not mean that criminal justice cannot be adapted to achieve a stronger ver sion of counter-ter rorism. The next few
41 Report of the Commission to Consider Legal Procedures to Deal with Terrorist Activities in Northern Ireland (Cmnd 5185, London, 1972).
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
above-board. "There's just one thing. Would you have any objection to performing at the village concert?"
"I should enjoy it."
"They're sure to rope you in. I thought you and I might do the Quarrel Scene from JuliusCæsaragain."
"Excellent."
"And this time," said Hugo generously, "you can be Brutus."
"No, no," said Ronnie, moved.
"Yes, yes."
"Very well. Then fix things up with this American bloke, and leave the rest to me. Shall I like your uncle?"
"No," said Hugo confidently.
"Ah well," said Mr. Fish equably, "I don't for a moment suppose he'll like me."
IV
The respite afforded to their patrons' ear drums by the sudden cessation of activity on the part of the Buddies proved of brief duration. Men like these ex-collegians, who have really got the saxophone virus into their systems, seldom have long lucid intervals between the attacks. Very soon they were at it again, and Mr. Molloy, rising, led Pat gallantly out onto the floor. His daughter, following them with a bright eye as she busied herself with a lip stick, laughed amusedly.
"She little knows!"
John, like Pat a short while before, had fallen into a train of thought. From this he now woke with a start to the realization that he was
alone with this girl and presumably expected by her to make some effort at being entertaining.
"I beg your pardon?" he said.
Even had he been less preoccupied, he would have found small pleasure in this tête-à-tête. Miss Molloy—her father addressed her as Dolly—belonged to the type of girl in whose society a diffident man is seldom completely at ease. There hung about her like an aura a sort of hard glitter. Her challenging eyes were of a bright hazel— beautiful but intimidating. She looked supremely sure of herself.
"I was saying," she explained, "that your Girl Friend little knows what she has taken on, going out to step with Soapy."
"Soapy?"
It seemed to John that his companion had momentarily the appearance of being a little confused.
"My father, I mean," she said quickly. "I call him Soapy." "Oh?" said John. He supposed the practice of calling a father by a nickname in preference to the more old-fashioned style of address was the latest fad of the Modern Girl.
"Soapy," said Miss Molloy, developing her theme, "is full of Sex Appeal, but he has two left feet." She emitted another little gurgle of laughter. "There! Would you just look at him now!"
John was sorry to appear dull, but, eyeing Mr. Molloy as requested, he could not see that he was doing anything wrong. On the contrary, for one past his first youth, the man seemed to him enviably efficient.
"I'm afraid I don't know anything about dancing," he said apologetically.
"At that, you're ahead of Soapy. He doesn't even suspect anything. Whenever I get into the ring with him and come out alive I reckon I've broke even. It isn't so much his dancing on my feet that I mind
—it's the way he jumps on and off that slays me. Don't you ever hoof?"
"Oh, yes. Sometimes. A little."
"Well, come and do your stuff, then. I can't sit still while they're playing that thing."
John rose reluctantly. Their brief conversation had made it clear to him that in the matter of dancing this was a girl of high ideals, and he feared he was about to disappoint her. If she regarded with derision a quite adequate performer like Mr. Molloy, she was obviously no partner for himself. But there was no means of avoiding the ordeal. He backed her out into mid-stream, hoping for the best.
Providence was in a kindly mood. By now the floor had become so congested that skill was at a discount. Even the sallow youths with the marcelled hair and the india-rubber legs were finding little scope to do anything but shuffle. This suited John's individual style. He, too, shuffled: and, playing for safety, found that he was getting along better than he could have expected. His tension relaxed, and he became conversational.
"Do you often come to this place?" he asked, resting his partner against the slim back of one of the marcelled-hair brigade who, like himself, had been held up in the traffic block.
"I've never been here before. And it'll be a long time before I come again. A more gosh-awful aggregation of yells for help, than this gang of whippets," said Miss Molloy, surveying the company with a critical eye, "I've never seen. Look at that dame with the eyeglass."
"Rather weird," agreed John.
"A cry for succour," said Miss Molloy severely. "And why, when you can buy insecticide at any drug store, people let these boys with the shiny hair go around loose beats me."
John began to warm to this girl. At first, he had feared that he and she could have little in common. But this remark told him that on certain subjects, at any rate, they saw eye to eye. He, too, had felt
an idle wonder that somebody did not do something about these youths.
The Buddies had stopped playing: and John, glowing with the strange new spirit of confidence which had come to him, clapped loudly for an encore.
But the Buddies were not responsive. Hitherto, a mere tapping of the palms had been enough to urge them to renewed epileptic spasms; but now an odd lethargy seemed to be upon them, as if they had been taking some kind of treatment for their complaint. They were sitting, instruments in hand, gazing in a spellbound manner at a square-jawed person in ill-fitting dress clothes who had appeared at the side of Mr. Baermann. And the next moment, there shattered the stillness a sudden voice that breathed Vine Street in every syllable.
"Ladies and gentlemen," boomed the voice, proceeding, as nearly as John could ascertain, from close to the main entrance, "will you kindly take your seats."
"Pinched!" breathed Miss Molloy in his ear. "Couldn't you have betted on it!"
Her diagnosis was plainly correct. In response to the request, most of those on the floor had returned to their tables, moving with the dull resignation of people to whom this sort of thing has happened before: and, enjoying now a wider range of vision, John was able to see that the room had become magically filled with replicas of the sturdy figure standing beside Mr. Baermann. They were moving about among the tables, examining with an offensive interest the bottles that stood thereon and jotting down epigrams on the subject in little notebooks. Time flies on swift wings in a haunt of pleasure like the Mustard Spoon, and it was evident that the management, having forgotten to look at its watch, had committed the amiable error of serving alcoholic refreshments after prohibited hours.
"I might have known," said Miss Molloy querulously, "that something of the sort was bound to break loose in a dump like this."
John, like all dwellers in the country as opposed to the wicked inhabitants of cities, was a law-abiding man. Left to himself, he would have followed the crowd and made for his table, there to give his name and address in the sheepish undertone customary on these occasions. But he was not left to himself. A moment later it had become plain that the dashing exterior of Miss Molloy was a true index to the soul within. She grasped his arm and pulled him commandingly.
"Snap into it!" said Miss Molloy.
The "it" into which she desired him to snap was apparently a small door that led to the club's service quarters. It was the one strategic point not yet guarded by a stocky figure with large feet and an eye like a gimlet. To it his companion went like a homing rabbit, dragging him with her. They passed through; and John, with a resourcefulness of which he was surprised to find himself capable, turned the key in the lock.
"Smooth!" said Miss Molloy approvingly. "Nice work! That'll hold them for a while."
It did. From the other side of the door there proceeded a confused shouting, and somebody twisted the handle with a good deal of petulance, but the Law had apparently forgotten to bring its axe with it to-night, and nothing further occurred. They made their way down a stuffy passage, came presently to a second door, and, passing through this, found themselves in a backyard, fragrant with the scent of old cabbage stalks and dish water.
Miss Molloy listened. John listened. They could hear nothing but a distant squealing and tooting of horns, which, though it sounded like something out of the repertoire of the Collegiate Buddies, was in reality the noise of the traffic in Regent Street.
"All quiet along the Potomac," said Miss Molloy with satisfaction. "Now," she added briskly, "if you'll just fetch one of those ash cans and put it alongside that wall and give me a leg-up and help me round that chimney and across that roof and down into the next
yard and over another wall or two, I think everything will be more or less jake."
VJohn sat in the lobby of the Lincoln Hotel in Curzon Street. A lifetime of activity and dizzy hustle had passed, but it had all been crammed into just under twenty minutes, and, after seeing his fair companion off in a taxicab, he had made his way to the Lincoln, to ascertain from a sleepy night porter that Miss Wyvern had not yet returned. He was now awaiting her coming.
She came some little while later, escorted by Hugo. It was a fair summer night, warm and still, but with her arrival a keen east wind seemed to pervade the lobby. Pat was looking pale and proud, and Hugo's usually effervescent demeanour had become toned down to a sort of mellow sadness. He had the appearance of a man who has recently been properly ticked off by a woman for Taking Me to Places Like That.
"Oh, hullo, John," he murmured in a low, bedside voice. He brightened a little, as a man will who, after a bad quarter of an hour with an emotional girl, sees somebody who may possibly furnish an alternative target for her wrath. "Where did you get to? Left early to avoid the rush?"
"It was this way ..." began John. But Pat had turned to the desk, and was asking the porter for her key. If a female martyr in the rougher days of the Roman Empire had had occasion to ask for a key, she would have done it in just the voice which Pat employed. It was not a loud voice, nor an angry one,—just the crushed, tortured voice of a girl who has lost her faith in the essential goodness of humanity.
"You see ..." said John.
"Are there any letters for me?" asked Pat.
"No, no letters," said the night porter; and the unhappy girl gave a little sigh, as if that was just what might be expected in a world where men who had known you all your life took you to Places which they ought to have Seen from the start were just DrinkingHells, while other men, who also had known you all your life, and, what was more, professed to love you, skipped through doors in the company of flashy women and left you to be treated by the police as if you were a common criminal.
"What happened," said John, "was this...."
"Good night," said Pat.
She followed the porter to the lift, and Hugo, producing a handkerchief, dabbed it lightly over his forehead.
"Dirty weather, shipmate!" said Hugo. "A very deep depression off the coast of Iceland, laddie."
He placed a restraining hand on John's arm, as the latter made a movement to follow the Snow Queen.
"No good, John," he said gravely. "No good, old man, not the slightest. Don't waste your time trying to explain to-night. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and not many like a girl who's just had to give her name and address in a raided night club to a plainclothes cop who asked her to repeat it twice and then didn't seem to believe her."
"But I want to tell her why...."
"Never tell them why. It's no use. Let us talk of pleasanter things. John, I have brought off the coup of a lifetime. Not that it was my idea. It was Ronnie Fish who suggested it. There's a fellow with a brain, John. There's a lad who busts the seams of any hat that isn't a number eight."
"What are you talking about?"
"I'm talking about this amazingly intelligent idea of old Ronnie's. It's absolutely necessary that by some means Uncle Lester shall be persuaded to cough up five hundred quid of my capital to enable me to go into a venture second in solidity only to the Mint. The one person who can talk him into it is Ronnie. So Ronnie's coming to Rudge."
"Oh?" said John, uninterested.
"And to prevent Uncle Lester making a fuss about this, I've invited old man Molloy and daughter to come and visit us as well. That was Ronnie's big idea. Thos. is rolling in money, and, once Uncle Lester learns that, he won't kick about Ronnie being there. He loves having rich men around. He likes to nuzzle them."
"Do you mean," cried John, "that that girl is coming to stay at Rudge?"
He was appalled. Limpidly clear though his conscience was, he was able to see that his rather spectacular association with Miss Dolly Molloy had displeased Pat, and the last thing he wished for was to be placed in a position which was virtually tantamount to hobnobbing with the girl. If she came to stay at Rudge, Pat might think.... What might not Pat think?
He became aware that Hugo was speaking to him in a quiet, brotherly voice.
"How did all that come out, John?"
"All what?"
"About Pat. Did she tell you that I paved the way?"
"She did! And look here...."
"All right, old man," said Hugo, raising a deprecatory hand. "That's absolutely all right. I don't want any thanks. You'd have done the same for me. Well, what has happened? Everything pretty satisfactory?"
"Satisfactory!"
"Don't tell me she turned you down?"
"If you really want to know, yes, she did."
Hugo sighed.
"I feared as much. There was something about her manner when I was paving the way that I didn't quite like. Cold. Not responsive. A bit glassy-eyed. What an amazing thing it is," said Hugo, tapping a philosophical vein, "that in spite of all the ways there are of saying Yes, a girl on an occasion like this nearly always says No. An American statistician has estimated that, omitting substitutes like 'All right,' 'You bet,' 'O.K.,' and nasal expressions like 'Uh-huh,' the English language provides nearly fifty different methods of replying in the affirmative, including Yeah, Yeth, Yum, Yo, Yaw, Chess, Chass, Chuss, Yip, Yep, Yop, Yup, Yurp...."
"Stop it!" cried John forcefully.
Hugo patted him affectionately on the shoulder.
"All right, John. All right, old man. I quite understand. You're upset. A little on edge, yes? Of course you are. But listen, John, I want to talk to you very seriously for a moment, in a broad-minded spirit of cousinly good will. If I were you, laddie, I would take myself firmly in hand at this juncture. You must see for yourself by now that you're simply wasting your time fooling about after dear old Pat. A sweet girl, I grant you—one of the best: but if she won't have you she won't, and that's that. Isn't it or is it? Take my tip and wash the whole thing out and start looking round for someone else. Now, there's Miss Molloy, for instance. Pretty. Pots of money. If I were you, while she's at Rudge, I'd have a decided pop at her. You see, you're one of those fellows that Nature intended for a married man right from the start. You're a confirmed settler-down, the sort of chap that likes to roll the garden lawn and then put on his slippers and light a pipe and sit side by side with the little woman, sharing a twin set of head phones. Pull up your socks, John, and have a dash at this Molloy girl. You'd be on velvet with a rich wife."
At several points during this harangue John had endeavoured to speak, and he was just about to do so now, when there occurred that which rendered speech impossible. From immediately behind them, as they stood facing the door, a voice spoke.
"I want my bag, Hugo."
It was Pat. She was standing within a yard of them. Her face was still that of a martyr, but now she seemed to suggest by her expression a martyr whose tormentors have suddenly thought up something new.
"You've got my bag," she said.
"Oh, ah," said Hugo.
He handed over the beaded trifle, and she took it with a cold aloofness. There was a pause.
"Well, good night," said Hugo.
"Good night," said Pat.
"Good night," said John.
"Good night," said Pat.
She turned away, and the lift bore her aloft. Its machinery badly needed a drop of oil, and it emitted, as it went, a low wailing sound that seemed to John like a commentary on the whole situation.
VI
Some half a mile from Curzon Street, on the fringe of the Soho district, there stands a smaller and humbler hotel named the Belvidere. In a bedroom on the second floor of this, at about the moment when Pat and Hugo had entered the lobby of the Lincoln, Dolly Molloy sat before a mirror, cold-creaming her attractive face.
