Rights to Liberty and Fair Trial--Sacrificed in the Name of Anti-Terrorism_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料

題名：	Rights to Liberty and Fair Trial--Sacrificed in the Name of Anti-Terrorism
書刊名：	歐美研究
作者：	廖福特
作者(外文)：	Liao, Fort Fu-te
出版日期：	2004
卷期：	34:3
頁次：	頁511-553
主題關鍵詞：	人身自由權；公平審判權；反恐；愛國者法案；2001年反恐法；Right to liberty；Right to fair trial；Anti-terrorism；USA PATRIOT Act；Anti-terrorism Act 2001
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(1) 排除自我引用:1 共同引用:0 點閱:22

當一個國家加入國際人權條約，其有義務在其國內實踐之，即使此國家是處於反恐時期。本文乃檢視美國與英國以反恐之名所採取之法律措施是否符合國際人權標準。本文著重於三項議題。首先，這兩個國家以何種標準定義恐怖份子。其次，所謂恐怖份子所受之待遇為何。第三，他們是如何受審判的。本文強調人權保障與反恐措施不應是衝突的，而應是共存之目標。本文認為美國與英國以反恐之名所制訂之法律及命令，並不盡然都符合國際人權標準，同時亦應廢除或修正。

以文找文

When a state adheres to international human rights treaties, it is obliged to implement them domestically within its jurisdiction, even in a time of anti-terrorism. This paper therefore examines whether the measures taken in the name of antiterrorism by the US and the UK are in accordance with international human rights standards. It focuses on three main issues. The first issue relates to the criteria used to define terrorists. Secondly, once identified, how will they be detained, and thirdly how will they be tried? It emphasizes that human rights protections and anti-terrorism measures should not be conflicting aims but parallel goals. It argues that the laws and orders enacted by the US and the UK may not always conform to international human rights standards, and should be rescinded or amended.

以文找文

期刊論文
1.	Asrani, S.(2002)。Security versus liberty: Striking the right balance. A comparison of anti-terror provisions in India and the United States。German Law Journal，3。
2.	Dorsen, N.(1997)。Civil liberties, national security and human rights treaties: A snapshot in context。UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy，3，143-158。
3.	Fitzpatrick, J.(2003)。Speaking law to power: The war against terrorism and human rights。European Journal of International Law，14(2)，245-265。
4.	French, A. E.(2002)。Trials in times of war: Do the Bush military commissions sacrifice our freedom?。Ohio State Law Journal，63(4)，1225-1284。
5.	Klabbers, J.(2003)。Rebel with a cause? Terrorists and humanitarian law。European Journal of International Law，14(2)，299-312。
6.	Mendez, J. E.(2002)。Human rights policy in the age of terrorism。Saint Louis University Law Journal，46(2)，377-404。
7.	Mundis, D. A.(2002)。The use of military commissions to prosecute individuals accused of terrorist acts。American Journal of International Law，96(2)，320-358。
8.	Paust, J. J.(2002)。Antiterrorism military commissions: The Ad Hoc DOD rules of procedure。Michigan Journal of International Law，23(3)，677-694。
9.	Sorel, Jean-Marc(2003)。Some questions about the definition of terrorism and the fight against its financing。European Journal of International Law，14(2)，365-378。
10.	The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(2002)。Decision on the request for precautionary measures (Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)。International Legal Materials，41，532-535。
11.	The Irish Centre for Human Rights(2001)。Human rights and the reaction to terrorism. Statement in reaction to the events of September 11, 2001。Bulletin，2(1)。
12.	Tomkins, A.(2002)。Analysis legislating against terror: The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001。Public Law，Summer，205-220。
13.	Vagts, D. F.(2003)。Which courts should try persons accused of terrorism?。European Journal of International Law，14(2)，313-326。
14.	Von Schorlemer, S.(2003)。Human rights: Substantive and institutional implications of the war against terrorism。European Journal of International Law，14(2)，265-282。

會議論文
1.	Howen, N.(2002)。Military force and criminal justice: The US response to 11 September and international law。0。

圖書
1.	Van Dijk, P.、Van Hoof, G. J. H.(1998)。Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights。The Hague：Kluwer Law International。
2.	Harris, D. J.、O'Boyle, M.、Warbrick, C.(1995)。Law of the European Convention on Human Rights。Butterworths。
3.	The White House(2002)。National Security Strategy of the United States of America。Washington, DC：The White House。
4.	Amnesty International(1998)。Fair trial manual。Fair trial manual。London, UK。
5.	Amnesty International(2002)。Rights at risk。London, UK：Amnesty International。
6.	Amnesty International(2002)。United States of America memorandum to the US government on the right of people in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay。London, UK：Amnesty International。
7.	Chang, N.(2002)。Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties?。New York, NY：Seven Stories Press。
8.	Clayton, R.、Tomlinson, H.(2001)。Fair trial rights。Fair trial rights。Oxford, UK。
9.	Dempsey, J. X.、Cole, D.(2002)。Terrorism & the Constitution Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security。Terrorism & the Constitution Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security。New York, NY。
10.	International Committee of the Red Cross(1958)。Commentary: IV Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war。Geneva, Switzerland：International Committee of the Red Cross。
11.	International Council on Human Rights Policy(2002)。Human rights after September 1。Geneva, Switzerland：International Council on Human Rights Policy。
12.	Joseph, S.、Schultz, J.、Castan, M.(2000)。The international covenant on civil and political rights cases, materials, and commentary。New York, NY：Oxford University Press。
13.	McGoldrick, D.(1991)。The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights。The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights。New York, NY。
14.	Ovey, C.、White, R.、Oley, Clare、White, Robin、Jacobs、White(2002)。European Convention on Human Rights。European Convention on Human Rights。New York, NY。
15.	UN High Commissioner for Refugees(1992)。Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees。Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees。Geneva, Switzerland。
16.	Young, K. A.(2002)。The law and process of the U.N. human rights committee。Ardsley, NY：Transnational Publishers, Inc.。

其他
1.	Amnesty International(2002)。Rights denied: The UK's response to 11 September 2001(EUR 45/016/2002)，沒有紀錄。
2.	Center for Constitutional Rights(2002)。The state of civil liberties: One year later, erosion of civil liberties in the 9/11 era，沒有紀錄。
3.	Center for National Security Studies(2002)。Department of Defense order on military commissions (Fact sheet)，沒有紀錄。
4.	Cohen, D.(2002)。Military commissions and international criminal tribunals from World War II to the present. Justice in the Balance Military Commissions and International Criminal Tribunals in a Violent Age，http://www.hrcberkeley.org/download/justice_davidcohen.pdf.， 2002/03/16。
5.	Human Rights Watch(2001)。Commentary on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001，沒有紀錄。
6.	Human Rights Watch(2001)。Past U. S. criticism of military tribunals (Fact sheet)，沒有紀錄。
7.	Human Rights Watch(2002)。Background paper on Geneva conventions and persons held by U. S. forces，沒有紀錄。
8.	Lawyers Committee for Human Rights(2003)。Accessing the new normal liberty and security for the post-September 11 United States，沒有紀錄。
9.	Office of the White House Press Secretary(20020207)。Status of Detainees at Guantánamo。
10.	The Stationery Office Limited(2001)。Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (chap. 24)，沒有紀錄。
11.	The Stationery Office Limited(2001)。Explanatory notes to Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (chap. 24)，沒有紀錄。

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	即使戰爭，也要人權--Hamdi及Hamdan判決評論
2.	反恐與人權--以美英兩國的立法措施為中心
3.	論不自證己罪原則--歐洲法整合趨勢及我國法發展之評析

無相關博士論文

1.	是共存，非衝突--歐洲理事會如何平衡打擊恐怖主義與人權保障

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫