Preventive detention as a counter-terrorism tool is fraught with
conceptual and procedural problems and risks of misuse, excess and
abuse. Many have debated the inadequacies of the current legal
frameworks for detention, and the need for finding the most appropriate
legal model to govern detention of terror suspects that might serve as a
global paradigm.
This book offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of the detention
of terror suspects under domestic criminal law, the law of armed
conflict and international human rights law. The book looks
comparatively at the law in a number of key jurisdictions including the
USA, the UK, Israel, France, India, Australia and Canada and in turn
compares this to preventive detention under the law of armed conflict
and various human rights treaties. The book demonstrates that the
procedures governing the use of preventive detention are deficient in
each framework and that these deficiencies often have an adverse and
serious impact on the human rights of detainees, thereby delegitimizing
the use of preventive detention.
Based on her investigation Diane Webber puts forward a new approach to
preventive detention, setting out ten key minimum criteria drawn from
international human rights principles and best practices from domestic
laws. The minimum criteria are designed to cure the current flaws and
deficiencies and provide a base line of guidance for the many countries
that choose to use preventive detention, in a way that both respects
human rights and maintains security.
