|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
Like medicine, law is replete with axioms of prevention.
'Prevention is better than cure' has a long pedigree in both
fields. 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke observed that
'preventing justice excelleth punishing justice'. A century later,
Sir William Blackstone similarly stated that 'preventive justice is
...preferable in all respects to punishing justice'. This book
evaluates the feasibility and legitimacy of state attempts to
regulate prevention. Though prevention may be desirable as a matter
of policy, questions are inevitably raised as to its limits and
legitimacy, specifically, how society reconciles the desirability
of averting risks of future harm with respect for the rule of law,
procedural fairness and human rights. While these are not new
questions for legal scholars, they have been brought into sharper
relief in policy and academic circles in the wake of the September
11 terrorist attacks. Over the past 15 years, a body of legal
scholarship has tracked the intensified preventive focus of
anti-terrorism law and policy, observing how this focus has
impacted negatively upon traditional legal frameworks. However,
preventive law and policy in other contexts, such as environmental
protection, mental health, immigration and corruption has not
received sustained focus. This book extends that body of
scholarship, through use of case studies from these diverse
regulatory settings, in order to examine and critique the
principles, policies and paradoxes of preventive justice. "Whereas
earlier scholars looked upon preventive justice as a source and
means of regulation, the powerfully argued contributions to this
volume provide forceful reasons to consider whether we would do
better talk about regulating preventive justice." Professor Lucia
Zedner, Oxford University
Like medicine, law is replete with axioms of prevention.
'Prevention is better than cure' has a long pedigree in both
fields. 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke observed that
'preventing justice excelleth punishing justice'. A century later,
Sir William Blackstone similarly stated that 'preventive justice is
...preferable in all respects to punishing justice'. This book
evaluates the feasibility and legitimacy of state attempts to
regulate prevention. Though prevention may be desirable as a matter
of policy, questions are inevitably raised as to its limits and
legitimacy, specifically, how society reconciles the desirability
of averting risks of future harm with respect for the rule of law,
procedural fairness and human rights. While these are not new
questions for legal scholars, they have been brought into sharper
relief in policy and academic circles in the wake of the September
11 terrorist attacks. Over the past 15 years, a body of legal
scholarship has tracked the intensified preventive focus of
anti-terrorism law and policy, observing how this focus has
impacted negatively upon traditional legal frameworks. However,
preventive law and policy in other contexts, such as environmental
protection, mental health, immigration and corruption has not
received sustained focus. This book extends that body of
scholarship, through use of case studies from these diverse
regulatory settings, in order to examine and critique the
principles, policies and paradoxes of preventive justice. "Whereas
earlier scholars looked upon preventive justice as a source and
means of regulation, the powerfully argued contributions to this
volume provide forceful reasons to consider whether we would do
better talk about regulating preventive justice." Professor Lucia
Zedner, Oxford University
As nations have aggressively implemented a wide range of mechanisms
to proactively curb potential threats terrorism, Counter-Terrorism
Laws and Freedom of Expression: Global Perspectives offers critical
insight into how counter-terrorism laws have adversely affected
journalism practice, digital citizenship, privacy, online activism,
and other forms of expression. While governments assert the need
for such laws to protect national security, critics argue
counter-terrorism laws are prone to be misappropriated by state
actors who use such laws to quash political dissent, target
journalists, and restrict other forms of citizen expression. The
book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the politics
and discourse of counter-terrorism laws. Part II focuses on the
ways counter-terrorism laws have impacted journalistic practice in
different countries, with effects ranging from imprisonment of
reporters to self-censorship. Part III addresses how
counter-terrorism laws have been used to target everyday citizens,
social media activists, whistleblowers, and human rights advocates
around the world. Together, the chapters address how
counter-terrorism laws have undermined democratic values in both
authoritarian and liberal political contexts. Scholars of political
science, communication, and legal studies will find this book
particularly interesting.
As nations have aggressively implemented a wide range of mechanisms
to proactively curb potential threats terrorism, Counter-Terrorism
Laws and Freedom of Expression: Global Perspectives offers critical
insight into how counter-terrorism laws have adversely affected
journalism practice, digital citizenship, privacy, online activism,
and other forms of expression. While governments assert the need
for such laws to protect national security, critics argue
counter-terrorism laws are prone to be misappropriated by state
actors who use such laws to quash political dissent, target
journalists, and restrict other forms of citizen expression. The
book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the politics
and discourse of counter-terrorism laws. Part II focuses on the
ways counter-terrorism laws have impacted journalistic practice in
different countries, with effects ranging from imprisonment of
reporters to self-censorship. Part III addresses how
counter-terrorism laws have been used to target everyday citizens,
social media activists, whistleblowers, and human rights advocates
around the world. Together, the chapters address how
counter-terrorism laws have undermined democratic values in both
authoritarian and liberal political contexts. Scholars of political
science, communication, and legal studies will find this book
particularly interesting.
|
|