ABSTRACT

International law has proven no barrier to the imposition of totalitarian, draconian or human rights abuses, even torture, which is absolutely prohibited by global conventions. The reality is that international human rights law provides little or no protection against the abuse of emergency powers, regardless of any violation of basic legal and democratic rights. One of the means by which international law facilitates emergency powers is by generously interpreting the 'public emergency' derogation tests in favour of governments. The UN Security Council took unprecedented action following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Far from demonstrating the effectiveness of the UN, however, the response to 9/11 demonstrated that it functioned as a conduit for the strategic and economic interests of the major powers, notably the United States. The political and ideological impact of the 'war on terrorism' on theorists of emergency law can be gauged through the response of Gross and Ni Aolain.