Thesis (LL. M.)--York University, 2000. Graduate Programme in Law. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 213-223). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pMQ56184.

Bibliography: leaves 261-275. / v, 275 leaves ; 30 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of Law, 1995

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1974. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis examines a number of closely connected counter-terrorist executive mechanisms in the United Kingdom (UK) and the manner in which they are administered, in order to evaluate the implications of the mechanisms for, and ultimately their compatibility with, the right to a fair trial under international human rights law (IHRL). More specifically, this study critically analyses Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). For reasons made clear in this thesis, these mechanisms are termed ‘counter-terrorist hybrid orders’ and are collectively analysed as such. As the study identifies a number of issues pertaining to the current design and administration of these mechanisms that can adversely affect the right to a fair trial, the thesis argues that they should be substantially reformed to make them more consistent with IHRL fair trial standards. Moreover, the thesis examines how these mechanisms, as they are currently designed and administered, have been accepted in a legal system with a recognised and long-established attachment to upholding high human rights standards. Having identified, generated and analysed a substantial body of research to perform this task, the thesis argues that the acceptance of the mechanisms as they are currently administered may have occurred as a result of the establishment of a state of ‘perpetual quasi-emergency’. This denotes a particular legal phenomenon in which the UK has responded to an evolving legal problem, namely, how to deal with terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted, deported, or indefinitely detained, in a manner that, whilst being grounded in law, actually resembles the behaviour of States enduring ‘prolonged emergencies’. The thesis asserts that the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, which creates the space necessary for the acceptance of these mechanisms, was established and is preserved by a number of legal and extra-legal factors. As such, some of the research, analysis and methods used to evaluate the phenomena in this study represents an original contribution to knowledge. This study encompasses a variety of approaches in order to examine a particular type of counter-terrorist power, the implications of these mechanisms for the right to a fair trial under IHRL, and the relationships between these issues and wider society. The study requires traditional doctrinal analysis when exploring what the right to a fair trial in the context of national security entails, and in order to examine the various counter-terrorist hybrid order regimes in light of this framework. When assessing what factors may play a role in the establishment and preservation of the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, the study necessitates methods which are less doctrinal and more socio-legal in nature.

The project investigated the events that led the United States from September 11, 2001 to the current war in Iraq. The specific time frame examined was the period beginning on September 11, 2001 and ending with the first pre-emptive attacks in Iraq on March 19, 2003.

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--California Polytechnic State University, 2009. / Mode of access: Internet. Title from PDF title page; viewed on Jan. 8, 2010. Major professor: Thomas Trice, Ph.D. "Presented to the faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo." "In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree [of] Master of Arts in History." "December 2009." Includes bibliographical references (p. 54-59).

Inaug.-Diss.--Bonn. / At head of title: Geschichte. Vita. Bibliography: p. 241-256.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M)-University of Natal, Durban, 1997.

This thesis examines how United States federal courts can review the President's exercise of the war powers to detain American citizens, or non-citizens having similar rights, as unlawful combatants. It argues that the separation of powers doctrine, based on Lockean principles, permits probing judicial review of such an executive detention, where the President exercises the war powers in a way that effectively adjudicates individual rights or impacts upon domestic affairs. / The constitutional controversy over unlawful combatant detentions is fundamentally a separation of powers problem. Existing functionalist and formalist theories about the separation doctrine, as well as dichotomous debates about individual rights versus national security, fail to reconcile judicial deference to executive decisions in some war powers cases with closer scrutiny in others. This thesis therefore proposes a new separation of powers theory that explains the existing war powers jurisprudence, while establishing principles upon which courts can vigorously review future executive war powers decisions that interfere with individual rights or impact upon domestic matters, such as with the detention of a citizen as an alleged unlawful combatant. / The thesis first sets out a separation of powers theory based on the political thought of John Locke, placing upon each branch a fiduciary duty to make decisions only in ways best calculated to serve the public good. The "deliberative processes" approach to the separation doctrine, growing out of this fiduciary duty, functionally distributes constitutional power among the branches depending upon which one is most institutionally suited to resolve the matter at hand. Judicial application of the political question doctrine in past war powers cases demonstrates such a Lockean deliberative processes analysis, in the ways that courts have questioned judicial competency to scrutinize the executive's strategic military decisions. Cases dealing specifically with unlawful combatant detentions, in turn, show that judicial competence to review executive military decisions increases when the President functionally adjudicates individual rights of the citizen, a deliberative process for which the courts are more institutionally competent. Accordingly, this thesis concludes that courts can review executive unlawful combatant detentions under adjudicative standards of legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.