Terrorism & Human Rights
I. Course Information:
The human rights dimension of global counter-terrorism efforts entails the use of case
law, legislation, international law, and national policy directives as implemented through
often difficult operational decisions. This course offers a comparative analysis of the
national approaches of, inter alia, the European Union, United States, Israel, and other
states particularly as they interface with the efforts of international organizations. The
human rights dimension of terrorism is both controversial and complex. This course will
analyze the development and implementation of international norms by emphasizing the
interrelationship between the theoretical foundations of international law and the
pragmatic necessity for protecting the citizens of the world from random violence that
undermines their core human rights. Effective counterterrorism requires a synergy
between fundamental norms of international law and the fabric of domestic law and
society. This multidisciplinary course focuses on the interlocking axes of legal norms as
they relate to accompanying political and operational imperatives. Students will be
exposed to case law from a number of jurisdictions occasionally reaching contradictory
results. This short course will also entail extended use of scenario-driven exercises
focused on treatment issues, trans-national transfer, and case studies of terrorist trials.
II. Required Texts:
Course materials provided online in digital format {students are highly encouraged to
print out hard copy of the documentary Supplement I’ve assembled}
III. Class Participation and Grading Scale:
The course objectives for this comparative experience can only be met through
participatory learning by engaged learners. As a group, my goal is that we all develop a
heightened professionalism and preparation. The final course grade will be based on a
1000 point scale, with points allotted as follows:
Class Participation (20%) – 250 points
1 Short in class analytical Essay (10%) – 50 points
24 Hour Take Home Examination (70%) – 700 points
IV. Syllabus:
The following syllabus is tentative – it conveys no contractual rights, and we will be
flexible as the need arises. To be perfectly clear, this is an ambitious amount of
learning, so don’t shortcircuit your preparations or debates with each other. Be daring
enough to through yourself into these topics with a sense of exploration and intellectual
adventure. Note that we will heavily refer to the Documentary Supplement in class each
and every time we meet, though I have refrained from setting out every specific treaty
reference in the syllabus. I will happily provide read ahead Articles of relevant treaties
upon request from interested students.
1|Page
CLASS
MEETING
SUBJECT & LEARNING
OBJECTIVES
1
(Feb. 27th
6 – 8pm)
Introduction to
International
Counterterrorism &
Ideological Framework
This first lesson will focus on the
intellectual underpinnings of the
debates regarding terrorism,
which in turn frames discussion
of the law and legitimacy of
counterterrorist strategies. As you
read the forthcoming essay by
Rosa Brooks, try to distill three or
four key themes underlying the
rhetoric.
2
(Feb 28th
5 – 8pm)
Overview of International
Law Principles Embedded
at the Confluence of
Human Rights Norms &
the Jus in Bello Regime
Judge Williams, D.C. Cir.
“Clarity in law is a virtue. In the
context of war, that virtue
becomes a life-and-death
necessity.” This discussion will
focus on the building blocks of
international law and the
relationship between domestic
law and the overarching norms
derived from international law.
IN CLASS EXERCISE: Students
will gather in groups to
analyze and critique the
Motion to Dismiss from
Guantanamo litigation
2|Page
REQUIRED PREPARATION
 Leiden Policy Recommendations


on Counter-terrorism and
International Law {paying
particular attention to the
Recommendations of Working
Group # 3}
Rosa Brooks, Duck-Rabbits and
Drones: Legal Indeterminacy in
the War on Terror, STANFORD LAW
AND POLICY REVIEW {publication
pending}
SKIM overall R. v Khawaja, [2012]
S.C.C. 69 (Can. S.C.C.) Decided
Dec 14, 2012.
Read Carefully ¶¶ 11-20 and 44-75.
 READ (Carefully) UN Security
Council Res. 1373 & 1566
{Documentary Supplement}
 Download and Digest the
following article, Michael A.
Newton, Exceptional Engagement:
Protocol I and a World United
Against Terror, 42 TEX. INT’L L. J.
323 (2009), available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa
pers.cfm?abstract_id=1524301
 SKIM Thematically {which
means glancing for the flow of
topics and general arguments}
1) Identical letters dated 19
September 2013 from the Permanent
Representative of the Syrian Arab
Republic to the United Nations
addressed to the Secretary-General
and the President of the
Security Council, U.N. Doc.
A/68/396
2) Letter from U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder to Senate Minority
Leader McConnell dated February 3,
2010
3
(Mar. 1st
11am –
1pm)
Detention & Rendition
EXERCISE AT THE
BEGINNING OF CLASS:
Students will have 15 minutes
to assess the U.S. Department
of Justice Drone policy [included
in the reading folder] and
critique it in light the themes
from Class #2
The core objective of this lesson
is to apply the human rights
concepts related to detention
operations. Gen Petraeus
described Abu Ghraib as “a nonbiodegradable” event in U.S.
military history, and to the extent
that crimes committed against
detainees corrode coalition unity
they erode our moral authority
and ultimate combat
effectiveness. The law is
evolving in this field to
necessitate a fusion of lex lata
with lex ferenda goals.
DO you believe that the Grand
chamber was correct in
rejecting the argument that
human rights norms permit
balancing of the individual’s
right to liberty against the
state’s interest in protecting
its population against the
threat of terrorism?
3|Page
 Yunus Rahmatullah v. Secretary
of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, Case No.
C1/2011/2210, 2011 EWCA Civ
1540 (Queen’s Division Dec. 14,
2011)
 A & Others v. United Kingdom,
(Application No. 3455/05)
European Court of Human Rights
(Grand Chamber): ECtHR
(Strasbourg),February 19, 2009


Whether the U.K.’s derogation of
Article 5 under Article 15 was
valid and proportionate.
Whether the applicants’
preventative detention
constituted a violation of Article 3
of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
 SKIM Abdul Razak Ali v. Obama,
Case No. 1:10-cv-01020, DC
Circuit Court of Appeals, Dec. 3,
2013 {denial of habeas petition}
4
(Mar. 1st
2 – 4pm)
IN CLASS EXERCISE: Students
will brainstorm and draft a
framework for a bilateral
extradition agreement that
comports with human rights
yet protects innocents
I suspect that we will in no
way wrap up our discussion
of core human rights
principles and will do so in
Meeting # 4. This class will
reinforce both the specific
rules applicable in a jus in
bello context but also review
the interconnections between
the three competing legal
domains.
5
(Mar. 2d
2 – 5pm)
4|Page
Domestic Legislation,
Due Process &
Fundamental Freedoms
We will discuss an array of
personal freedoms implicated in
counterterrorism efforts –
privacy, freedom of expression
and the appropriate range of
domestic counter-terrorism
legislation.
 El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, [2012]
Eur. Ct. H.R. 39630/09 (2012),
Decided 13 Dec. 13, 2012
 Maqaleh v. Gates, No. 09-5265
D.C. Cir. (21 May 2010)
 R. v Khawaja, [2012] S.C.C. 69
(Can. S.C.C.) Decided Dec 14,
2012.
 Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 2d
Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket
Nos. 10-4519-cv(L), 10-4524cv(CON) January 18, 2013
 Compare United States Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court
of Review with In re Directives
[redacted text] Pursuant to
Section 105B of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act
with Comments of the Judiciary
on Reform of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act
 Prepare an annotated critique of
the 2009 Ethiopian Anti-Terror
law