Sustaining the “War”: Human Rights and Proportionality or: Legtimacy and Globalisation Bill Tupman University of Exeter

Basic thoughts A global war on terrorism needs to balance domestic legitimacy against a variety of international and regional legitimacies There are not and never have been any purely military solutions to terrorism It’s a matter of politics, stupid!

Can we measure legitimacy Yes. But it changes rapidly Polls over a perios of time fairly reliaible More difficult to measure the impact of a policy, law or event on legitimacy The greater the legitimacy,the less the need to use force or violence to obtain policy compliance and vice versa Terrorism demonstrates that a challenge to legitimacy exists

Risk-profile this stuff Will it create more terrorists or less terrorists? I.E. will it create more candidates for terrorists to recruit Will existing terrorists think it better to carry on the campaign or to give up?

support is a crucial element Will the policy/law/action create more popular support; less popular support or will the public become neutral? In the USA? In the West generally? In other countries? In the islamic world?

Spillover Can we create degrees of citizenship? Can we define terrorists [and organised criminals] in such a way that: We can suspend or diminish their human rights Without this spilling over into other areas?

Risk profiling laws Will it affect police-public relations? And will it thus affect public willingness to come forward: And report crime Provide evidence Be witnesses in court? Because this will affect the legitimacy of the whole criminal justice system

Risk-profiling at global level How will this new policy affect the international system? And the way states relate to each other? And their willingness to provide personnel and materiel

What does it do to the rights of foreigners in general? Particularly to me if I’m in another country? Will it lead to a general increase in prejudice, ignorance and stereotyping?

Seriously, though Has anyone bothered to carry out cost- benefit and risk analysis? Why not? Is it because the policy fits the ideology? Or is it because it has been decided that this must be done WHATEVER the cost How will it affect long-term commitments?

What about democracy Terrorists seek to use law enforcement officials and conservatives to achieve their aims for them. The goal is the undermining of democracy Human rights can be suspended in an emergency But an emergency is a short-lived event Any longer and it’s authoritarianism

And the media? Are they on-side? Has the policy been properly explained to them? Or do they see the whole business as a saga of celebrities Do they have a duty to criticise? Are they still crucial to the creation of legitimacy Or are they part of a climate of neutrality?