Contemporary Trends and Issues

• Author: Mark Freeman, Gibran Van Ert
• Pages: 516-544

516

International human rights law is constantly evolving. Its major con-

troversies tend to track global political developments. This final chap-

ter examines some of the main contemporary debates and emerging

trends in the field and offers some reflections on the challenges partic-

ular to Canada’s reception of, and participation in, the field of interna-

tional human rights law.

A. Terrorism and Human Rights

Following the massive terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, govern-

ments around the world proclaimed a “war” against terrorism as a cen-

tral domestic and foreign policy objective. But despite the existence of

well over a dozen anti-terrorism treaties, there is still no generally

accepted definition of the term “terrorism.”1The lack of a definition

CONTEMPORARY

TRENDS AND ISSUES

conclusion

1 The key UN treaties are: the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts

Committed on Board Aircraft 1963 [1970] CanTS no. 5, the Hague Convention

for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970 [1972] CanTS no. 23,

the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil

Aviation 1971 [1973] CanTS no. 6 and the Protocol for the Suppression of

Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation 1988 [1993] CanTS no. 8, the

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against International-

ly Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents 1973 [1977] CanTS no. 43,

the Convention against the Taking of Hostages 1979 [1986] CanTS no. 45, the

was one reason why terrorism was not included as a crime in the Rome

Statute.2To some extent the controversy over its definition centres on

the familiar adage that one person’s terrorist is another person’s free-

dom fighter. But there is also controversy regarding fundamental ques-

tions such as who can be responsible for acts of terrorism — private

individuals only, or states as well?

Counter-terrorism efforts raise a number of important human rights

questions. Indeed, the so-called war on terrorism presents a major new

challenge to the human rights movement.3Many human rights advo-

cates are concerned that the war against terrorism is nothing more than

a war against human rights, and in particular civil rights. This may be

a valid concern. The counter-terrorist legislation enacted in many states

in the aftermath of September 11th often strained the balance between

public security and the protection of individual rights. In the US, Japan,

the UK, Australia, and even Canada, the threat of terrorism prompted,

or was used to justify, far-reaching legislation unimaginable before the

September 11th attacks.4There are examples of legislation authorizing,

among other things: detentions of indefinite duration of legal and ille-

Conclusion: Contemporary Trends andIssues 517

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1980 [1987] CanTS

no. 35, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety

of Maritime Navigation 1988 [1993] CanTS no. 10, the Convention on the

Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection 1991 [1998] CanTS

no. 54, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

1997 [2002] CanTS no. 8, the International Convention for the Suppression of

the Financing of Terrorism 1999 [2002] CanTS no. 9.

2 See “Note by the Secretary-General on the establishment of an international

criminal court,” UN doc. A/53/387 (1998) at para. 9, which states that the UN

Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of the Interna-

tional Criminal Court

regretted that no generally acceptable definition of the crimes of terrorism

and drug crimes could be agreed upon for the inclusion, within the jurisdic-

tion of the Court [and recommended that] a Review Conference should con-

sider the crimes of terrorism and drug crimes with a view to arriving at an

acceptable definition and their inclusion in the list of crimes within the juris-

diction of the Court.

3 See, for example, M. Ignatieff, “Mission Impossible?” New York Review of

Books, 19 December 2002.

4 See generally Amnesty International, World Report (2003) at “2002 In Focus,”

“Introduction,” and “Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights.” The report notes:

“Exploiting the atmosphere of fear that followed 11 September, many governments

ignored, undermined or openly violated fundamental principles of international

human rights and humanitarian law.” Regarding Canada, the report states that

“fears increased that people accused of supporting armed Islamist groups were at

risk of being deported to countries where they faced a serious risk of torture.”