Read more
After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 terrorism was added to Ulrich Beck's risk society list of catastrophic global events (the list includes global warming and nuclear war). Since late 2001, executive governments and parliaments around the world have been taking various precautionary measures meant to prevent terrorist acts. Some International Relations scholars see the judiciary as a guardian of human rights that tries to curb the excesses of the other two branches of government. This book argues that this view may be naive and incorrect. The book starts with a brief historical overview of the judiciary's tendency to go to war together with the executive in times of crisis. In Foucauldian terms the judiciary governs itself through the prevailing regime of truth. In the main body of the book the focus is on six sets of court cases, two from Australia, Canada and the UK each. In almost all the cases the judiciary shows a willingness to defer to the executive on questions of national security. While in some respects the regime of truth of the war on terror is nothing new, in other ways the reasoning of the judiciary post 9/11 has certain distinctive characteristics.
About the author
I was born and grew up in Bulgaria. I migrated to Australia in the early 1990s. I have worked in the legal profession and in government in Australia since 2001.
