“Homeland Insecurity”, penned by Conor Gearty, is an impressively articulated scrutiny that uncovers the harm inflicted upon liberal democracies by today’s excessive fear of terrorism. It implies that the laws specifically designed to combat terrorism are here indefinitely, bringing with them detrimental impacts on personal freedoms. Disturbingly, these counterterrorism measures have become an independent entity in the global north, no longer being directly linked to genuine threats of violence.
Gearty’s work in the initial section of Homeland Insecurity elucidates how terrorism developed into such a significant anxiety for the global north. He suggests that while creators of laws against terrorism did not fabricate the deadly bombings and murders, they played a key role in forming the notion of “terrorism”. Counterterrorism laws, as per Gearty’s argument – based on the research of decolonial historians and critical scholars – find their origin in colonialism. Occupying powers used the concept of “terrorism” to disparage and decertify the violent rebellion of subjugated people, effectively distracting from their own murderous empire-building agenda. Notably, Ireland and Palestine were seminal in the development and testing of the ideas of terrorism and corresponding laws.
The term “terrorism” was politically repurposed during the cold war, with western experts in the 1980s attempting to establish a link between the Soviet Union and violent incidents from Belfast to Berlin and Beirut, a notion that was largely dismissed. This transformation of local disputes into an international emergency worked in favour of those maintaining the status quo. Binyamin Netanyahu, back then Israel’s permanent ambassador to the United Nations, led the pack of experts. It was around then that Israel began repeatedly invoking the UN Charter’s self-defence provisions to endorse its “antiterrorism” measures. Initially, this was widely seen as an overreach, but it began setting a worrying precedent. Governments worldwide soon began regularly using self-defence as justification for pre-emptive “counter-terrorism” measures.
Part two delineates the incorporation of antiterrorism policies into both international and national legal structures. The events of September 11th, 2001, were not new instances of terrorism or the application of antiterrorism laws, but they facilitated certain emerging tendencies. Gearty adeptly elaborates on how government officials took advantage of legal ambiguities in both national and global laws to enforce indefinite imprisonment, pre-emptive attacks, and extraordinary rendition. While these were not new practices, the global “war on terror” transformed them into standard defensive strategies for democracy rather than subversions.
The image depicted is one of a United Nations organisation lacking internal organisational unity. Former colonial powers and ex-colonies couldn’t agree on the validity of violent uprisings striving for national liberation due to contrasting viewpoints. The UN’s response to terrorism was thus largely limited to scattered condemnations for many years. However, in the post 9/11 world, the UN’s approach began to evolve. The US-sponsored Resolution 1373 pledged the commitment of UN members to combat terrorism, steering the pendulum from freedom towards a favouring of security.
The enactment of Resolution 1373 led to the development of significant antiterrorism provisions thereafter. This legislation was then manipulated for international and domestic counter-terrorism operations in ways that contradicted the UN’s alleged commitment to human rights. In spite of the fervent push for antiterrorism policies, there were efforts to keep it in check. Special rapporteurs for the UN, who emphasized the need to protect human rights in the face of counter-terrorism (including Irish legal Rrenda Fionnuala Ní Aoláin), did much to underscore the global corrosive impact of overemphasizing antiterrorism. Although successive special rapporteurs have tirelessly combated excesses in antiterrorism, the UN facilitated many of these transgressions either deliberately or inadvertently.
Gearty expands his focus from international to national, not hesitating to criticize. Domestic oversight measures have struggled to hold governments accountable. Judiciary bodies have predominantly remained indifferent, showing reluctance in restraining executive authority associated with national security issues. When courts did attempt to handle the situation, they may have managed to control the worst oversteps by governments, but in the process, they deeply entrenched the non-liberal methods of antiterrorism within our legal systems.
Gearty fervently presents the argument that liberal democracies have consistently embodied a form of double standard, which explains the dichotomy in their domestic and foreign behaviours. This hypothesis also sheds light on the maltreatment of individuals branded as ‘others’ such as non-citizens, foreigners, or the so-called internal adversaries. This theory further helps highlight the hypocrisies of the states, as they condemn their colonial adversaries for resorting to terror acts while themselves employing cruder forms of violence. It is important to note, that despite the fixation the global North has with terrorism, it has never served as an existential threat. The idea of terrorism is indeed an unpleasant one and its application seems increasingly disproportionate and unsuitable, especially considering the widespread violence witnessed in regions like Gaza and Ukraine. Yet, as Gearty suggests, society’s preoccupation with antiterrorism laws persists and could potentially outlast the inclination for human rights. Dr Kieran McConaghy, who specializes in terrorism and political violence, contributes to academia as a lecturer at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.