Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review

List of contributors; Acknowledgements; Introduction. Counter-terrorism judicial review: beyond dichotomies Fergal F. Davis and Fiona de Londras; Part I. Judging Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review: 1. Counter-terrorism judicial review as regulatory constitutionalism Fiona de Londras; 2. Counter-terrorism judicial review by a traditionally weak judiciary Jens Elo Rytter; 3. When good cases go bad: unintended consequences of rights-friendly judgments David Jenkins; 4. The rhetoric and reality of judicial review of counter-terrorism actions: the United States experience Jules Lobel; Part II. Beyond Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review: 5. Emergency law as administrative law Mark Tushnet; 6. The politics of counter-terrorism judicial review: creating effective parliamentary scrutiny Fergal F. Davis; 7. Independent reviewers as alternative: an empirical study from Australia and the United Kingdom Jessie Blackbourn; 8. Public inquiries as an attempt to fill accountability gaps left by judicial and legislative review Kent Roach; Part III. Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review in the Political Constitution: 9. Rebalancing the unbalanced constitution: juridification and national security in the United Kingdom Roger Masterman; 10. Business as usual: deference in counter-terrorism rights review Cora Chan; 11. Deference and dialogue in the real-world counter-terrorism context Gavin Phillipson; Part IV. Internationalised Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review: 12. Counter-terrorism law and judicial review: the challenge for the Court of Justice of the European Union Cian C. Murphy; 13. Post 9/11 UK counter-terrorism cases in the European Court of Human Rights: a 'dialogic' approach to rights' protection or appeasement of national authorities? Helen Fenwick; 14. Accountability for counter-terrorism: challenges and potential in the role of the courts Helen Duffy; Index.