Terrorism, State Action, and Rights Lawyering In The UK and The USA: Illegal Violence, Legal Force, And Legal Response?

摘要

Following acts of political violence, liberal states recede from normal moderate governance and attempt to normalize emergency interventions. Most notably, state action is likely to violate basic freedoms of members of minority communities. Legal mobilization on basic freedoms is contingent on certain factors, most significant of which is the extent to which human rights work is institutionalized and accepted as mainstream lawyering. A few decades back, legal mobilization was either limited to a few innovators or to marginalized segments of the legal profession. Post 9/11 the prominent features of rights work are: heterogeneity of participant lawyers, professional specialization accompanied by a division of labor over rights work, and the use of legal proceduralism. All of these features enhance a widespread albeit minimalist legal mobilization. An agreed upon vision of professionalism incorporates a particular vision of neutrality of lawyers and the role of lawyers for the "rule of law," which facilitates human rights work under hostile conditions.