Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
72. Daniels, RJ, Macklem, P and Roach, K The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73. Roach, K, The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74. See, eg, Donohue, LK The Cost of Counter-Terrorism: Power, Politics and Liberty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75. Of which, the leading title is co-edited by Roach: Ramraj, V et al (eds) Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 2012)Google Scholar. See also Siniver, A (ed) International Terrorism Post-9/11: Comparative Dynamics and Responses (London: Routledge, 2010).Google Scholar
76. Roach, , above n 73, p 5.Google Scholar
77. Garland, D The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001) p 2.Google Scholar
78. Roach, , above n 73, p 6.Google Scholar
79. Scheppele, KL ‘The constitutional role of transnational courts: principled legal ideas in three-dimensional political space’ (2010) 28 Penn State International Law Review 451 at 452.Google Scholar
80. Roach, , above n 73, p 6.Google Scholar See also K Roach ‘The criminal law and its less restrained alternatives’ in Ramraj, et al, above n 75, p 117.Google Scholar
81. Roach, , above n 73, p 19.Google Scholar
82. See also Tushnet, M ‘The political constitution of emergency powers: parliamentary and separation-of-powers regulation’ (2007) 3 International Journal of Law in Context 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83. On the significance of Australia's criminal trials of persons for terrorism-related activity, see McGarrity, N “Testing’ our counter-terrorism laws’ (2010) 34 Criminal Law Journal 92.Google Scholar
84. Roach, , above n 75, p 356.Google Scholar
85. Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 (Cth), s 3.
86. See Lynch, A ‘The impact of post-enactment review on anti-terrorism laws: four jurisdictions compared’ (2012) 18 Journal of Legislative Studies 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87. A v Secretary of State [2004] UKHL 56.
88. Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2007] 1 SCR 350.
89. Especially Hamdan v Rumsfeld [2006] 548 US 557; Boumediene v . Bush [2008] 553 US 723.
90. Goldsmith, J The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (New York: Norton, 2007).Google Scholar
91. Ibid, p 132.
92. Roach, , above n 75, p 13.Google Scholar
93. Roach, K ‘Sources and trends in post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws’ in Goold, BJ and Lazarus, L Security and Human Rights (Oxford: Hart, 2007) ch 10.Google Scholar
94. See CH Powell ‘The United Nations Security Council, terrorism and the rule of law’ in Ramraj, et al, above n 75, ch 2Google Scholar; Rosand, E ‘The Security Council as ‘global legislator’: ultra vires or ultra innovative?’ (2004–2005) 28 Fordham International Law Journal 542.Google Scholar
95. CH Powell ‘The legal authority of the United Nations Security Council’ in Goold, and Lazarus, , above n 93, p 166.Google Scholar
96. Roach, , above n 75, p 51.Google Scholar
97. Roach, , above n 93, pp 242–245 Google Scholar; Roach, K, ‘The world wide expansion of anti-terrorism laws after 11 September 2001’ (2004) 3 Studi Senesi 487 at 490–503.Google Scholar
98. A Lynch ‘Legislating anti-terrorism: observations on form and process’ in Ramraj, et al, above n 75, ch 7.Google Scholar
99. Roach, , above n 75, p 432.Google Scholar
100 Ibid, p 1.
101 See, eg, Walker, C ‘Intelligence and anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom’ (2005) 44 Crime, Law and Social Change 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
102 Goldsmith, , above n 90, p 215.Google Scholar