|
|
Terrorism and the urgent issues of reform in UN Peace architecture:
There is an urgent need to take a second look at the United Nation system. The current reform being carried out with regards to the membership and role of the Security Council should be encouraged and be speeded up. There may also be a need to re-examine some sections of the charter and close gaps shown by current problems of terrorism. For instance, veto power has been identified as contributing to the current strain in the UN’s collective security measures. Meanwhile, the search for a clear cut definition of terrorism must have to yield positive results. In absence of this, it would be difficult to prosecute any suspect on charges of terrorism without raising questions of conformity with human rights norms. “You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.”
In light of the issues discussed above can it be said by way of conclusion, that terrorism and counter measures as symbolized by Guantanomo Bay have changed the rules of the game?
It seems to me that Lord Hoffman’s deep analysis in the celebrated UK House of Lords’ decision in A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 will be helpful here. In that case, Lord Hoffman and his colleagues were asked, among others, to examine the question whether terrorism could be considered as a threat to the life of the UK nation, in accordance with the substantive requirement for derogating from UK’ s obligation under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Lord Hoffman reasoned, in line with earlier decision in Lawless v. Ireland (1979-80) 1 EHRR 1, 13, &15 that “Life of the nation” as used in Article 15 of the ECHR, is not conterminous with the lives of the citizens of the nation. For Hoffman, life of the nation is metaphorical and refers to the organized life the community of which the state is composed; its values and institutions. On that basis His Lordship held that terrorism does not threaten the life of the UK nation, rather what threatens that life are counter terrorism laws, such as UK’s Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001.
On the strength of that sound reasoning, I conclude, that the terrorism has not changed the rules of international law. What it has done is to challenge these rules, in such a way as to inspire all states to take a second and deeper look at them with a view to reiterating and reforming them, without losing sight of the cardinal human interest rational for these laws. It may well be that terrorism, which, undoubtedly, is a crime against humanity, will be better confronted by emphasizing the things that hold us together, whilst de-emphasizing those things that hold us apart; by building bridges across the divides of poverty and riches; colour and cultures; by making conscious efforts to understand why some people choose to become terrorists; to shed innocent blood, wreck havoc and die for a cause so ill-defined; so illogical.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Wilfred Mamah
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
