Presented at the 2nd annual LL.M. Conference at Cornell Law School on April 16, 2005.
The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11 set in motion a new era all over the world: an era of a world uniting against a common enemy, but also an era of insecurity and fear. Laws have been changed worldwide, nations have united against a common threat, legal theories and beliefs of centuries have been questioned, and civil liberties have been replaced by a need for national safety. Has this worldwide effort worked? Is our world a better place now that we are all fighting the same enemy? Did we learn from our past mistakes? And if yes, did we learn the right lessons?
After analyzing the situation in various countries in regard to anti-terrorism efforts as well as the problems that the exporting of U.S. policies has created, we conclude that suspension of civil and constitutional rights should not be the means in the goal of fighting terrorism; not only because civil law is in direct conflict with such practices, but also and more importantly because the same goal can be achieved through less harsh and more fair means. An international cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts, through exchange of information, advanced technology and expertise, can help countries be more effective in arresting terrorists and collecting and evaluating evidence that can be later used in a court of law, in order to bring these terrorists to justice and convict them. The war against terrorism can be won without sacrificing our legal ethics, without violating constitutional and human rights and procedures.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Kallergi, Olga, "Exporting U.S. Anti-Terrorism Legislation and Policies to the International Law Arena, a Comparative Study: the Effect on Other Countries' Legal Systems" (2005). Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers. Paper 4.