No Cover Image

E-Thesis 494 views 306 downloads

Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis. / Rhian Mai Williams

Swansea University Author: Rhian Mai Williams

Abstract

The threat posed by terrorism and the need to counter it tends to produce a cycle of action and reaction in which democracies often find themselves. The on-going threat perpetuates this cycle with the effect that more legislation is enacted, often without achieving increased security. Instead what t...

Full description

Published: 2005
Institution: Swansea University
Degree level: Doctoral
Degree name: Ph.D
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42427
first_indexed 2018-08-02T18:54:41Z
last_indexed 2018-08-03T10:10:07Z
id cronfa42427
recordtype RisThesis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2018-08-02T16:24:29.2130002</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>42427</id><entry>2018-08-02</entry><title>Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>f18ecbf30d59f54fcf03da7a2d98a66f</sid><ORCID>NULL</ORCID><firstname>Rhian Mai</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><name>Rhian Mai Williams</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>true</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-08-02</date><abstract>The threat posed by terrorism and the need to counter it tends to produce a cycle of action and reaction in which democracies often find themselves. The on-going threat perpetuates this cycle with the effect that more legislation is enacted, often without achieving increased security. Instead what tends to occur is the normalisation of emergency measures, the erosion of rights and liberties and ultimately the risk of the country becoming less democratic. This cycle can be said to be in existence in the United Kingdom and the United States in seeking to deal with the current terrorist threat. This thesis examines, in a comparative context, the extent to which the side effects of this cycle have occurred in both countries. This is done through examination of the extent to which the rights and liberties of the individual are restricted by the response to terrorism, namely the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the UK and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 and the USA PATRIOT Act 2001 in the US. In so doing, it examines the hypothesis that with regard to the legislation in question, interference with the rights and liberties examined in the UK is greater than in the US due to the profusion of legislation enacted in response to the protracted domestic terrorist struggle and the subsequent erosion of these values. Consideration is given to the previous terrorist threat and the response of each country in examining the condition of democratic values prior to the period under examination. This allows comparison with the impact of the current legislation on these values, whereby it can be seen that whilst some amount of restriction of fundamental rights and liberties has occurred in both countries, this cannot be said to be greater in the UK. The democratic foundation of each country remains intact, thereby providing the best form of protection against terrorism.</abstract><type>E-Thesis</type><journal/><journalNumber></journalNumber><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Law.;Political science.</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2005</publishedYear><publishedDate>2005-12-31</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Law</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><degreelevel>Doctoral</degreelevel><degreename>Ph.D</degreename><apcterm/><lastEdited>2018-08-02T16:24:29.2130002</lastEdited><Created>2018-08-02T16:24:29.2130002</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Rhian Mai</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><orcid>NULL</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0042427-02082018162453.pdf</filename><originalFilename>10798135.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2018-08-02T16:24:53.5500000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>9342090</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>E-Thesis</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2018-08-02T16:24:53.5500000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>false</copyrightCorrect></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2018-08-02T16:24:29.2130002 v2 42427 2018-08-02 Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis. f18ecbf30d59f54fcf03da7a2d98a66f NULL Rhian Mai Williams Rhian Mai Williams true true 2018-08-02 The threat posed by terrorism and the need to counter it tends to produce a cycle of action and reaction in which democracies often find themselves. The on-going threat perpetuates this cycle with the effect that more legislation is enacted, often without achieving increased security. Instead what tends to occur is the normalisation of emergency measures, the erosion of rights and liberties and ultimately the risk of the country becoming less democratic. This cycle can be said to be in existence in the United Kingdom and the United States in seeking to deal with the current terrorist threat. This thesis examines, in a comparative context, the extent to which the side effects of this cycle have occurred in both countries. This is done through examination of the extent to which the rights and liberties of the individual are restricted by the response to terrorism, namely the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the UK and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 and the USA PATRIOT Act 2001 in the US. In so doing, it examines the hypothesis that with regard to the legislation in question, interference with the rights and liberties examined in the UK is greater than in the US due to the profusion of legislation enacted in response to the protracted domestic terrorist struggle and the subsequent erosion of these values. Consideration is given to the previous terrorist threat and the response of each country in examining the condition of democratic values prior to the period under examination. This allows comparison with the impact of the current legislation on these values, whereby it can be seen that whilst some amount of restriction of fundamental rights and liberties has occurred in both countries, this cannot be said to be greater in the UK. The democratic foundation of each country remains intact, thereby providing the best form of protection against terrorism. E-Thesis Law.;Political science. 31 12 2005 2005-12-31 COLLEGE NANME Law COLLEGE CODE Swansea University Doctoral Ph.D 2018-08-02T16:24:29.2130002 2018-08-02T16:24:29.2130002 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Rhian Mai Williams NULL 1 0042427-02082018162453.pdf 10798135.pdf 2018-08-02T16:24:53.5500000 Output 9342090 application/pdf E-Thesis true 2018-08-02T16:24:53.5500000 false
title Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
spellingShingle Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
Rhian Mai Williams
title_short Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
title_full Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
title_fullStr Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
title_full_unstemmed Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
title_sort Anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States: A comparative analysis.
author_id_str_mv f18ecbf30d59f54fcf03da7a2d98a66f
author_id_fullname_str_mv f18ecbf30d59f54fcf03da7a2d98a66f_***_Rhian Mai Williams
author Rhian Mai Williams
author2 Rhian Mai Williams
format E-Thesis
publishDate 2005
institution Swansea University
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description The threat posed by terrorism and the need to counter it tends to produce a cycle of action and reaction in which democracies often find themselves. The on-going threat perpetuates this cycle with the effect that more legislation is enacted, often without achieving increased security. Instead what tends to occur is the normalisation of emergency measures, the erosion of rights and liberties and ultimately the risk of the country becoming less democratic. This cycle can be said to be in existence in the United Kingdom and the United States in seeking to deal with the current terrorist threat. This thesis examines, in a comparative context, the extent to which the side effects of this cycle have occurred in both countries. This is done through examination of the extent to which the rights and liberties of the individual are restricted by the response to terrorism, namely the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the UK and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 and the USA PATRIOT Act 2001 in the US. In so doing, it examines the hypothesis that with regard to the legislation in question, interference with the rights and liberties examined in the UK is greater than in the US due to the profusion of legislation enacted in response to the protracted domestic terrorist struggle and the subsequent erosion of these values. Consideration is given to the previous terrorist threat and the response of each country in examining the condition of democratic values prior to the period under examination. This allows comparison with the impact of the current legislation on these values, whereby it can be seen that whilst some amount of restriction of fundamental rights and liberties has occurred in both countries, this cannot be said to be greater in the UK. The democratic foundation of each country remains intact, thereby providing the best form of protection against terrorism.
published_date 2005-12-31T07:25:54Z
_version_ 1821298869769601024
score 11.04748

Similar Items