テロ対策法の人権制限 : イギリスの経験から
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
In almost all modern states, anti-terror legislation was concerned with domestic public order except for police action by the armed forces. However, after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States and United Kingdom created a permanent anti-terrorist legislation. The UK has had a long history of temporary anti-terror legislation, e.g., the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939, and the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 (Northern Ireland). However the UK recently created permanent legislation. Especially from 2000 to 2008, the UK has created considerable amount of legislation, e.g., the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (c.2), the Terrorism Act 2006 (c.11), and the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. International security experts have pointed out repeatedly in anti-terror legislation that military power is not appropriate. In light of this problem, we must consider that UK has used the derogation clause, Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, usually called the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). I discuss Article 15 case laws of the ECHR, and of the UK domestic courts. From this point of view, Legislation for emergency situation (yuji-hosei) in Japan has the same problem. Many commentators argue that contingency legislation in Japan violates Article 9 of the constitution. In recent years, Japan has transformed the legislation regarding the Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF). In this context, counter-terrorism measures are gradually shifting from police control to that of the JSDF. The Japanese government seems to be justified with the interference with all the human rights, and to which corresponded the constitution by the "public welfare" stipulated in Article 13 of the constitution. Moreover, could have the "public welfare" provided therein justified the JSDF? On this point, we must consider the derogation clause, Article 4 of the International Covenant of the Civil and Political Rights. The government may create contingency legislation for the purpose of national security, but almost all such legislation would interfere with human rights.
著者
関連論文
- 自由権規約4条(緊急事態)についての一般的意見29
- テロ対策法の人権制限 : イギリスの経験から
- 「EU改革条約」とイギリスの「憲法改革」に関する覚書
- 第二期平和研究 (長期的共同研究組織中間報告(2006年度))
- 日本国憲法における「国民」概念の限界と「市民」概念の可能性--イギリス法との比較を通じて
- イギリス憲法における「イギリス国民」(British National)観念の変動--「2002年イギリス海外諸領法」の内容とその意義
- 居住権についての憲法的省察--地域的市民権と居住権
- 日本における外国人の権利及び権利論の歴史と国籍法--「国籍」の憲法学的考察に向けて
- イギリス移民法についての憲法学的考察--ヨーロッパ人権裁判所判決Abdulaziz et al v.United Kingdomを素材として
- 「参政権の性質」論序説--「シチズンシップ」論の批判的考察
- 「裁量」概念の国内裁判所と(地域的)国際裁判所における相違についての一考察--National security概念とderogation条項
- National Securityによる「外国人」の権利制限--イギリス1998年人権法の試練
- 「愛国心」考 : 教育基本法「改正」の問題点を中心に
- 自己情報開示請求権についての一考察
- 資料 2001年イギリス総選挙視察調査報告
- オーストラリア ヴィクトリア州 2006年人権及び責任法憲章
- オーストラリア首都特別地域 2004年人権法
- オーストラリアにおける人権保障 : 成文憲法典で人権保障を規定することの意義・研究序説
- 憲法総論の再検討
- 韓国における移民関連施策および支援状況に関する実態調査報告(6)
- 憲法統治機構講義案(1)
- 憲法統治機構講義案(2)