Ian Turner | University of Central Lancashire (original) (raw)

Papers by Ian Turner

Democracy and Security, 2024

John Locke was a social contract theorist. He envisaged that individuals had domiciled in a state... more John Locke was a social contract theorist. He envisaged that individuals had domiciled in a state of nature, enjoying natural rights. But because of the insecurities of the natural state, individuals transitioned to the stability of civil society, guaranteed by a sovereign. There were fetters on the sovereign, however, such as passing laws for the public good. Is modern legislation to counter terrorism for the public good? Locke also expressly granted a right of resistance on the people. But is this right terrorism? Reflecting on these principles, this study examines counter-terror statutes and determines whether Locke would support them.

Policing and Firearms: New Perspectives and Insights, 2022

Police officers in England, Scotland and Wales (Britain) are not routinely armed. Natural opposit... more Police officers in England, Scotland and Wales (Britain) are not routinely armed. Natural opposition to the idea of all British officers being armed comes from rights groups, primarily concerned about the right to life implications for victims: not only in the greater risk of arbitrary killing by the State, but also the impunity for offending officers.

This reticence about the routine arming of the police reflects the classic liberal belief that citizens must be protected from the actions of the State, especially where fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, are threatened. But does this traditional approach unduly monopolise the human rights debate? The purpose of this piece is to explore conceptual arguments relating to the right to life: has the traditional approach to the right, largely concentrated on the arbitrary killing of civilians, unfairly dominated the rights discourse? Is there a human rights argument in favour of the routine arming of the police in Britain?

Journal for Deradicalization, 2023

The UK has a comprehensive arsenal of counter-terror law. The Terrorism Act 2000, for example, ou... more The UK has a comprehensive arsenal of counter-terror law. The Terrorism Act 2000, for example, outlaws the membership of a proscribed terror group, as per s.11; and support for a proscribed terror group, as per s.12. The legislation also criminalises the preparation of terror attacks, such as possession for terrorist purposes, as per s.57; and the collection of information, as per s.58. Following the 7/7 terror attacks in London in 2005 the UK passed the Terrorism Act 2006 outlawing, for example, the encouragement of terrorism, including the glorification of terrorism, as per s.1; and the dissemination of terrorist publications, as per s.2. But the UK’s existing counter-terror legislation does not seem to go far enough in deterring violent extremism that falls short of terrorism. In February 2021, therefore, the UK’s independent Commission on Countering Extremism suggested further legislative reform to this area. In the UK there is freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, Article 10(2) of the ECHR permits a necessary interference with speech on the grounds of the prevention of disorder and crime. Indeed, historically, liberalism, which underpins much of human rights law, has also permitted limitations on the freedom of expression. Are the Commission’s proposals to curtail further the free speech of extremists compliant with the jurisprudence on free speech and the philosophy of liberalism upon which much of the law of human rights is grounded? Without being able to assess the Commission’s suggested reforms within every element of free speech, this piece examines many of its important facets, such as the responsibility of the rights-holder, the speaker, and the certainty upon which the law limiting the free speech is authorised. The findings of this piece are that the proposals of the Commission respect the UK’s law on free speech and its related theories of liberalism.

The Philosophy of Legal Change, 2019

A significant portion of human rights instruments in the world contain rights that are ‘freedoms ... more A significant portion of human rights instruments in the world contain rights that are ‘freedoms from’ governmental intrusion, reflecting traditional liberal sensibilities that the state can be a danger to human rights. But the state is arguably no longer the principal threat to the security of the individual: human rights are being violated much more by non-state actors such as suspected terrorists. In 2017, for example, the UK was the victim of several terror attacks from individuals with alleged links to Islamist groups: atrocities committed on Westminster and London Bridges in London in March and June respectively; and a suicide bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May. In the so called ‘War on Terror’, to counter these Islamist atrocities, many, particularly those in the media, see human rights merely as a vehicle to secure the ‘undeserving’ rights of terror suspects over the more important rights of victims. The idea that human rights protect the ‘few’ over the...

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019

A s per the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is incorp... more A s per the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is incorporated into UK law. One of these rights is Article 10(1), freedom of expression. This protects speech that

The International Journal of Human Rights, 2020

John Locke believed individuals covenanted with the state, in return for security they had previo... more John Locke believed individuals covenanted with the state, in return for security they had previously lacked in the state of nature. But in this bargain of protection, individuals still retained fundamental freedoms, such as life, liberty and estate. This reflected the fear that the newly created state, whilst also a guarantor of security, was also a threat to it. But since 9/11, and the continuation of Islamist terrorism, is the state still a significant threat to individual freedom, in the Lockeian sense? Another social contract theorist, Thomas Hobbes, vested more power in the state than Locke. With modern interpreters of security from the liberal tradition recognising significant curtailments of freedom for the very protection of the constitutional state from nonstate actors, such as Islamists, can these interpretations be premised on the limited rights granted to citizens by the Hobbesian sovereign? These are the issues which this paper seeks to explore.

Journal of Human Trafficking, 2015

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights is freedom from slavery. A key feature of th... more Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights is freedom from slavery. A key feature of this right is the obligation it imposes on states such as the UK to prevent violations of the freedom, such as the trafficking in human beings, by third parties. This piece finds that the UK's response to its duties in preventing human trafficking is patchy but concludes that this will be much improved with its new Modern Slavery Bill 2014-15.

Democracy and Security, 2016

Post 9/11, and especially with the dramatic rise of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), ... more Post 9/11, and especially with the dramatic rise of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the author advocates a collective right to security. Plotting a course through state absolutism and liberalism one 'finds' communitarianism as a philosophy to support this right to security. The author's 'communitarian', right to security is based on an interpretation of European human rights law, particularly 'positive' duties of the state, to protect the rights to life of individuals from violations by non-state actors such as suspected terrorists. But for reasons of practical enforcement limitations to the exercise of the right are also articulated.

The International Journal of Human Rights, 2014

The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in the UK in 2000, incorporating specific Articles of ... more The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in the UK in 2000, incorporating specific Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the freedoms from torture (Article 3) and slavery (Article 4), into British law. But this legislation, and the rights it enshrines, are under severe attack from Politicians and sections of the British Press. This article presents a strong defence of the statute, by reference to one of its notable achievements: the obligation it imposed on the UK to outlaw the holding of a person in slavery or servitude, or compelling them to perform compulsory labour.

Terrorism and Political Violence, 2011

Freedom from torture is regarded as "absolute", meaning that a state cannot infringe the right fo... more Freedom from torture is regarded as "absolute", meaning that a state cannot infringe the right for purposes which would seem legitimate such as the protection of national security. Indeed, the freedom is viewed as "non-derogable"; that is, infringements are not permitted even in special circumstances such as times of war or public emergency. Is it right, however, with the growth in international terrorism post "9/11", particularly suicide violence, that the freedom should remain without limitation? Perhaps the torture of terror suspects might provide state authorities with intelligence so that acts of atrocity can be averted? To go on and construct a possible argument justifying ill-treatment against a detainee this article questions whether in fact from freedom from torture can be categorised as absolute.

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 2012

In law freedom from torture and ill-treatment is "absolute," meaning that a state cannot infringe... more In law freedom from torture and ill-treatment is "absolute," meaning that a state cannot infringe the right for purposes that would seem legitimate such as the protection of national security. However, with the growth in international terrorism, particularly suicide violence, should the freedom remain without limitation? This article considers legitimizing torture by reference to the "positive" legal obligation the right imposes on states to prevent harm to individuals by third parties such as terrorists. Assuming such a legal argument could be made out, it is questioned whether adopting such measures of interrogation would in fact outweigh the negative consequences that would inevitably follow from reversing accepted international standards for the protection of, say, detainees from ill-treatment in state custody. It is a well-established principle of international law that those detained by the state enjoy the right not to be tortured and ill-treated. For example, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Furthermore, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.. ." The United Nations (UN) has also enacted a treaty specifically addressing torture: the ConventionagainstTorture (UNCAT). Freedom from torture and other forms of ill-treatment is legally "absolute" so there are no lim-Q1 itations to the right in any circumstances. Indeed, Article 2(2) of the UNCAT states that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Why in law is this freedom absolute, and non-permissable either in war or other public emergency? Notwithstanding the seemingly little practical value that ill-treatment might provide in giving state officials reliable information about, for example, a terror plot (which is discussed in more detail later), torture has been described as an intimate exercise of pain-inflicted one on one-that terrorizes and humiliates the victim, and robs them of the dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the ideal of being human. 1 Indeed, would a country, bound by the rule of law, want to admit openly to its international partners that

Liverpool Law Review, 2008

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional princ... more The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed-the use of the proportionality principle, for example-or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit-a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

The Keele Law Review, 2021

The international community has struggled to adopt a cohesive response to Islamist terrorism sinc... more The international community has struggled to adopt a cohesive response to Islamist terrorism since the late 1990s. Member states of the United Nations have, therefore, been accorded significant discretion in how they react to terror threats. The United Kingdom, for example, has embraced a pro-security agenda in the number of legislative responses it has enacted, together with the breadth of criminalisation these statutes employ. The theory of the social contract is particularly applicable to the difficulties modern countries face in drawing the line between liberty and security. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke traditionally theorise opposing ends of this spectrum. But contemporary security discourse has often overlooked the philosophical contribution of another theorist of the same era as Hobbes and Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Where does Rousseau present on the liberty/security divide? Do his writings represent a theoretical model for the UK's pro-security response since 9/11? These are the questions this piece seeks to answer.

The threat to the UK and its Western allies from Al-Qaeda related terrorism has declined but grou... more The threat to the UK and its Western allies from Al-Qaeda related terrorism has declined but groups such as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have filled the ‘void’. In response the UK has introduced a raft of measures to increase its security, fulfilling many of its international and regional responsibilities to prevent terrorism. Human rights law is particularly important in this regard as it imposes obligations on states such as the UK to prevent violations of rights, such as the right to life, by non-state actors such as terrorists. This article seeks to employ a theoretical justification for a reading of this approach to human rights and focuses on legislative measures the UK has introduced to protect them. The philosophy for doing so is communitarianism, notably its critique of liberalism, and the post 9/11 revisions to it by communitarians such as Amitai Etzioni in particular.

The Police Journal

In 2010 Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people, as well as injuring a further 11, in Cumbria. A l... more In 2010 Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people, as well as injuring a further 11, in Cumbria. A legitimate question that arose after the tragedy was whether the outcome would have been different if the British police had been armed? This paper explores whether human rights law requires, or at least justifies, the UK authorities to arm the police in the pursuit of public protection? Derrick Bird was licensed to possess his firearms. Is a more proportionate response amendments to the existing weapons certification process? These are some of the questions which this article seeks to address.

Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 2012

In law freedom from torture and ill-treatment is “absolute,” meaning that a state cannot infringe... more In law freedom from torture and ill-treatment is “absolute,” meaning that a state cannot infringe the right for purposes that would seem legitimate such as the protection of national security. However, with the growth in international terrorism, particularly suicide violence, should the freedom remain without limitation? This article considers legitimizing torture by reference to the “positive” legal obligation the right imposes on states to prevent harm to individuals by third parties such as terrorists. Assuming such a legal argument could be made out, it is questioned whether adopting such measures of interrogation would in fact outweigh the negative consequences that would inevitably follow from reversing accepted international standards for the protection of, say, detainees from ill-treatment in state custody.

Terorrism and Political Violence, 2011

Freedom from torture is regarded as “absolute”, meaning that a state cannot infringe the right fo... more Freedom from torture is regarded as “absolute”, meaning that a state cannot infringe the right for purposes which would seem legitimate such as the protection of national security. Indeed, the freedom is viewed as “non-derogable”; that is, infringements are not permitted even in special circumstances such as times of war or public emergency.Is it right, however, with the growth in international terrorism post “9/11”, particularly suicide violence, that the freedom should remain without limitation?Perhaps the torture of terror suspects might provide state authorities with intelligence so that acts of atrocity can be averted? To go on and construct a possible argument justifying ill-treatment against a detainee this article questions whether in fact from freedom from torture can be categorised as absolute