Human rights violations after 9/11 and the role of constitutional constraints

B.V.G. Goderis, M. Versteeg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

After 9/11, the United States and its allies took measures to protect their citizens from future terrorist attacks. While these measures aim to increase security, they have often been criticized for violating human rights. But violating rights is difficult in a constitutional democracy with separated powers and checks and balances. This paper empirically investigates the effect of the post-9/11 terror threat on human rights. We find strong evidence of a systematic increase in rights violations in the United States and its ally countries after 9/11. When testing the importance of checks and balances, we find that this increase is significantly smaller in countries with independent judicial review (countermajoritarian checks) but did not depend on the presence of veto players in the legislative branch (majoritarian checks). These findings have important implications for constitutional debates on rights protection in times of emergency
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)131-164
JournalThe Journal of Legal Studies
Volume41
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

human rights violation
allies
human rights
terrorism
threat
democracy
citizen
evidence
veto player
time

Cite this

Goderis, B.V.G. ; Versteeg, M. / Human rights violations after 9/11 and the role of constitutional constraints. In: The Journal of Legal Studies. 2012 ; Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. 131-164.
@article{d8c2d8d072214604a85de5b4f06b1674,
title = "Human rights violations after 9/11 and the role of constitutional constraints",
abstract = "After 9/11, the United States and its allies took measures to protect their citizens from future terrorist attacks. While these measures aim to increase security, they have often been criticized for violating human rights. But violating rights is difficult in a constitutional democracy with separated powers and checks and balances. This paper empirically investigates the effect of the post-9/11 terror threat on human rights. We find strong evidence of a systematic increase in rights violations in the United States and its ally countries after 9/11. When testing the importance of checks and balances, we find that this increase is significantly smaller in countries with independent judicial review (countermajoritarian checks) but did not depend on the presence of veto players in the legislative branch (majoritarian checks). These findings have important implications for constitutional debates on rights protection in times of emergency",
author = "B.V.G. Goderis and M. Versteeg",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "131--164",
journal = "The Journal of Legal Studies",
issn = "0047-2530",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "1",

}

Human rights violations after 9/11 and the role of constitutional constraints. / Goderis, B.V.G.; Versteeg, M.

In: The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2012, p. 131-164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Human rights violations after 9/11 and the role of constitutional constraints

AU - Goderis, B.V.G.

AU - Versteeg, M.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - After 9/11, the United States and its allies took measures to protect their citizens from future terrorist attacks. While these measures aim to increase security, they have often been criticized for violating human rights. But violating rights is difficult in a constitutional democracy with separated powers and checks and balances. This paper empirically investigates the effect of the post-9/11 terror threat on human rights. We find strong evidence of a systematic increase in rights violations in the United States and its ally countries after 9/11. When testing the importance of checks and balances, we find that this increase is significantly smaller in countries with independent judicial review (countermajoritarian checks) but did not depend on the presence of veto players in the legislative branch (majoritarian checks). These findings have important implications for constitutional debates on rights protection in times of emergency

AB - After 9/11, the United States and its allies took measures to protect their citizens from future terrorist attacks. While these measures aim to increase security, they have often been criticized for violating human rights. But violating rights is difficult in a constitutional democracy with separated powers and checks and balances. This paper empirically investigates the effect of the post-9/11 terror threat on human rights. We find strong evidence of a systematic increase in rights violations in the United States and its ally countries after 9/11. When testing the importance of checks and balances, we find that this increase is significantly smaller in countries with independent judicial review (countermajoritarian checks) but did not depend on the presence of veto players in the legislative branch (majoritarian checks). These findings have important implications for constitutional debates on rights protection in times of emergency

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 131

EP - 164

JO - The Journal of Legal Studies

JF - The Journal of Legal Studies

SN - 0047-2530

IS - 1

ER -