No Cover Image

Journal article 1261 views

Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy

Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo

ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume: 15, Issue: 1, Pages: 95 - 146

Swansea University Author: Stuart Macdonald Orcid Logo

Abstract

Contemporary discussions of counterterrorism policy tend to be dominated by the image of a set of scales. One pan contains security, the other contains liberty, and the task is to strike a balance between the two. This essay adds to existing critiques of this metaphor by focusing on its assumption t...

Full description

Published in: ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law
Published: ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 2009
Online Access: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol15/iss1/7/
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa5080
first_indexed 2013-07-23T11:51:40Z
last_indexed 2022-01-18T03:19:18Z
id cronfa5080
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2022-01-17T11:01:21.3827245</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>5080</id><entry>2011-10-01</entry><title>Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-7483-9023</ORCID><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Macdonald</surname><name>Stuart Macdonald</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2011-10-01</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>Contemporary discussions of counterterrorism policy tend to be dominated by the image of a set of scales. One pan contains security, the other contains liberty, and the task is to strike a balance between the two. This essay adds to existing critiques of this metaphor by focusing on its assumption that there is a shared understanding of what each of these pans represents. The essay argues that this results in a failure to engage with the variety of perspectives individuals hold on what the demands of security and liberty actually are and how these would best be met. For security, it results in a failure to distinguish between subjective and objective security. After using work from the fields of psychology and sociology to assert that new counterterrorism laws should not be enacted on the basis that they will make people feel safer, the essay explains that the metaphor&#x2019;s simple invitation to decide what weight one attaches to security (relative to liberty) obscures the fact that individuals who attach the same weight to security may hold different views on the likely security benefits and costs (including opportunity costs) of a proposed counterterrorism measure. For liberty, the essay shows that for many disputed issues in contemporary counterterrorism policy the root cause of the contention is not different views on the weight of liberty (relative to security), but different views on three issues pertaining to the dictates of liberty: whether liberty requires an absolute prohibition on a power; the impact of a power on liberty; and whether safeguards are needed to regulate how a power is used. The essay concludes by advancing a new framework for the analysis of counterterrorism policy which is capable of opening up discussion of this variety of different perspectives.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law</journal><volume>15</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart>95</paginationStart><paginationEnd>146</paginationEnd><publisher>ILSA Journal of International &amp; Comparative Law</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Anti-terrorism policy, security, liberty</keywords><publishedDay>29</publishedDay><publishedMonth>1</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2009</publishedYear><publishedDate>2009-01-29</publishedDate><doi/><url>https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol15/iss1/7/</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HRCL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2022-01-17T11:01:21.3827245</lastEdited><Created>2011-10-01T00:00:00.0000000</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Macdonald</surname><orcid>0000-0002-7483-9023</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2022-01-17T11:01:21.3827245 v2 5080 2011-10-01 Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98 0000-0002-7483-9023 Stuart Macdonald Stuart Macdonald true false 2011-10-01 HRCL Contemporary discussions of counterterrorism policy tend to be dominated by the image of a set of scales. One pan contains security, the other contains liberty, and the task is to strike a balance between the two. This essay adds to existing critiques of this metaphor by focusing on its assumption that there is a shared understanding of what each of these pans represents. The essay argues that this results in a failure to engage with the variety of perspectives individuals hold on what the demands of security and liberty actually are and how these would best be met. For security, it results in a failure to distinguish between subjective and objective security. After using work from the fields of psychology and sociology to assert that new counterterrorism laws should not be enacted on the basis that they will make people feel safer, the essay explains that the metaphor’s simple invitation to decide what weight one attaches to security (relative to liberty) obscures the fact that individuals who attach the same weight to security may hold different views on the likely security benefits and costs (including opportunity costs) of a proposed counterterrorism measure. For liberty, the essay shows that for many disputed issues in contemporary counterterrorism policy the root cause of the contention is not different views on the weight of liberty (relative to security), but different views on three issues pertaining to the dictates of liberty: whether liberty requires an absolute prohibition on a power; the impact of a power on liberty; and whether safeguards are needed to regulate how a power is used. The essay concludes by advancing a new framework for the analysis of counterterrorism policy which is capable of opening up discussion of this variety of different perspectives. Journal Article ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 15 1 95 146 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law Anti-terrorism policy, security, liberty 29 1 2009 2009-01-29 https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol15/iss1/7/ COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University 2022-01-17T11:01:21.3827245 2011-10-01T00:00:00.0000000 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Stuart Macdonald 0000-0002-7483-9023 1
title Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
spellingShingle Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
Stuart Macdonald
title_short Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
title_full Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
title_fullStr Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
title_full_unstemmed Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
title_sort Why we should abandon the balance metaphor: a new approach to counterterrorism policy
author_id_str_mv 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98
author_id_fullname_str_mv 933e714a4cc37c3ac12d4edc277f8f98_***_Stuart Macdonald
author Stuart Macdonald
author2 Stuart Macdonald
format Journal article
container_title ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law
container_volume 15
container_issue 1
container_start_page 95
publishDate 2009
institution Swansea University
publisher ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
url https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol15/iss1/7/
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description Contemporary discussions of counterterrorism policy tend to be dominated by the image of a set of scales. One pan contains security, the other contains liberty, and the task is to strike a balance between the two. This essay adds to existing critiques of this metaphor by focusing on its assumption that there is a shared understanding of what each of these pans represents. The essay argues that this results in a failure to engage with the variety of perspectives individuals hold on what the demands of security and liberty actually are and how these would best be met. For security, it results in a failure to distinguish between subjective and objective security. After using work from the fields of psychology and sociology to assert that new counterterrorism laws should not be enacted on the basis that they will make people feel safer, the essay explains that the metaphor’s simple invitation to decide what weight one attaches to security (relative to liberty) obscures the fact that individuals who attach the same weight to security may hold different views on the likely security benefits and costs (including opportunity costs) of a proposed counterterrorism measure. For liberty, the essay shows that for many disputed issues in contemporary counterterrorism policy the root cause of the contention is not different views on the weight of liberty (relative to security), but different views on three issues pertaining to the dictates of liberty: whether liberty requires an absolute prohibition on a power; the impact of a power on liberty; and whether safeguards are needed to regulate how a power is used. The essay concludes by advancing a new framework for the analysis of counterterrorism policy which is capable of opening up discussion of this variety of different perspectives.
published_date 2009-01-29T18:09:24Z
_version_ 1821339355405352960
score 11.04748

Similar Items