3. Counter-Terrorism Strategies Reveal the Limits of Human Rights as a Cosmopolitan Discourse in the Age of Global Terror. Discuss.

Since the start of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, human rights were introduced as a system that exceeded any boundaries, such as religion, gender, ethnicity and nationality, in order to protect each individual. It was an attempt to universalize human standards of decency, morality and dignity, by way of constructing a global human community. It is through this that human rights were able to be changed and recognised as a standard for global order, regulated through international law. The act of terrorism is not a new concept, and has been responsible for many innocent lives over many years, however not until the attacks on the United States, known as 9/11, has terrorism become such a globalized issue. It was through the symbolic destruction of capitalism, coupled with the vast media outlets to create witnesses that allowed for Western society to face a new threat of vulnerability. The mass production of human rights violations aimed at such a seemingly powerful Western country induced a culture of fear, specifically regarding the weaknesses in national security. Terrorism, national security, and war became the dominant dialogue throughout international politics, and governments began to develop counter-terrorism legislation in order to enhance feelings of safety and security, but also to seek retribution against terrorist groups. It is through this introduction of new counter-terrorism legislation that allows the expectations of human rights protection to become confused, as state security becomes the prime concern. This new legislation becomes a shield to hide behind when human rights violations are committed, allowing the state to use the premise of counter terrorism as a justification for neglecting what was previously an internationally standardized notion of human rights protection. It then becomes a paradoxical debate of violation and protection, where policies designed to protect society from these human rights violations, not only affect

Bibliography: Bloche, M. G., & Marks, J. H. (2005). Doctors and Interrogaters at Guantanamo Bay. The New England Journal of Medicine , 6-8. Garlasco, M. E. (2008). "Troops in Contact": Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan. New York: Human Rights Watch. Helsing, J. W., & Mertus J. A. (2006). Human rights and conflict: exploring the links between rights, law, and Peacebuilding. Washington: United States Institute of Peace. Hocking, J., & Lewis, C. (2007). Counter-Terrorism and the Post-Democratic State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Humphrey, M. (2002). The Politics of Atrocity and Reconciliation: from Terror to Trauma. London: Routledge. Luban, D. (2002). The Publicity of Law and the Regulatory State. Journal of Political Philosophy , 296-316. McCulloch, J. (2003). 'Counter Terrorism ', Human Security and Globalisation - From Welfare to Warfare State? Current Issues in Criminal Justice vol 14 , 283-298. Pojman, L. P. (2006). Terrorism, Human Rights and the case for World Government. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Stout, C. E. (2002). The Psychology of Terrorism: Clinical aspects and responses. Volume: 2. Westport: Praeger Von Schorlemer, S Wilson, R. (2005). Human rights in the 'War on Terror '. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Zizek, S. (2002). Are we in a war? Do we have an enemy? London Review of Books. Vol. 24 No. 10