The Pros And Cons Of Counterterrorism

1058 Words5 Pages
Wilkinson puts forward the view that in a democracy, the main goal of a counterterrorism approach should be to safeguard and upkeep democracy, the rule of law, and its people. He emphasises that these objectives outweigh the need of eradicating terrorism and political violence besides, it also can weaken democratic ideal. “Any bloody tyrant can solve the problem of political violence if he is prepared to sacrifice all considerations of humanity, and to trample down all constitutional and judicial rights.” In countering terrorism, there are two recognised methods namely, the war and criminal justice models. The war model recommends the use of maximum force to reach its objectives, while the latter recommends the rule of law and to use minimum…show more content…
Terrorists are generally regarded as enemies of the state and are regularly presented as harmful people who endanger the way of life. As such, when terrorism is presented in this fashion, it will rationalise military involvement by the state. But in theory, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the other treaties of war regulate these interventions. On the other hand, Rousseau and other social contract advocates claim those who infringe the social rights of the public are no more regarded as members of the state. Instead, they are now at war with it. Breaking the social contract, they claim, takes away all legal relationships between the person and the state. Some posit that the state is liable for offering security and safeguard for its people, even if exceptional steps are needed. Furthermore, some claim the legal order lies on the sovereignty of the state and that the rule of law can be transcended to recover public confidence and order. The focus of the war model approaches as Schmitt claims, is to eradicate terrorists who endanger the status quo and to reinstate legal order. Therefore, the use of strong force is the key to this

More about The Pros And Cons Of Counterterrorism

Open Document