Civil Liberties, National Security and Prospects for Consensus

The idea of security has recently seen a surge of interest from political philosophers. After the atrocities of 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005, many leading politicians justified encroachments on international legal standards and civil liberties in the name of security and with a view to protecting the rights of the people. Suggestions were made on both sides of the Atlantic to the effect that the extremism of terrorism required the security of the many to be weighed against the liberties of other citizens. In this collection of essays, Jeremy Waldron, Conor Gearty, Tariq Modood, David Novak, Abdelwahab El-Affendi and others debate how to move beyond the false dichotomy whereby fundamental human rights and international standards are conceived as something to be balanced against security. They also examine the claim that this aim might better be advanced by the inclusion in public debate of explicitly religious voices.

The idea of security has recently seen a surge of interest from political philosophers. After the atrocities of 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005, many leading politicians justified encroachments on international legal standards and civil liberties in the name of security and with a view to protecting the rights of the people. Suggestions were made on both sides of the Atlantic to the effect that the extremism of terrorism required the security of the many to be weighed against the liberties of other citizens. In this collection of essays, Jeremy Waldron, Conor Gearty, Tariq Modood, David Novak, Abdelwahab El-Affendi and others debate how to move beyond the false dichotomy whereby fundamental human rights and international standards are conceived as something to be balanced against security. They also examine the claim that this aim might better be advanced by the inclusion in public debate of explicitly religious voices.