The Terrorism-Civil Liberties Complex: Persistent Threats, Global Constitutionalism, and the Entrenchment of Human Rights Regimes in Counterterrorism

A common view among scholars is that extended security threats "ratchet" up civil liberties violations and entrench them in a state's legal regime. This dissertation suggests that the opposite can occur. A prolonged threat may allow a society to incorporate civil liberties into its security discourse, regularizing rights-sensitive approaches and oversight on security policy.;The dissertation examines interrogation and detention policies in Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It finds that while acute outbreaks in violence often initially prompt crackdowns, some security-related rights protections can actually become stronger as time wears on. Common explanations for policy change such as ineffectiveness, threat level, and great power pressure cannot fully account for these developments. Instead, the interaction of two factors strengthens rights protections: 1) decision makers' identification with the international democratic community, which makes them receptive to evolving global human rights norms; and 2) the length of security threat, which allows these norms to become "entrenched" in the legal system and thus, harder to dislodge when threats intensify or reemerge. While human rights regimes are often considered weak, these cases demonstrate that persistent threats can actually strengthen such regimes by forcing discussion, spawning advocacy groups, changing institutions, and creating rhetorical frameworks that bind decision makers when threats intensify.