In the last two decades, democratic countries have had to contend with a growing and evolving terrorist threat. Many of the counter-terrorism policies that have been introduced during this period have been criticized for having been made hastily and without a solid evidentiary basis. Critics argue that as a result, many policies not only fail to guard human rights but impinge on them, all the while also proving ineffectual. By failing to safeguard human and civil rights and liberties, many see that such policies erode legitimacy and trust through discriminatory and alienating practices and thereby contribute to the radicalization that gives rise to the terrorism which they seek to prevent. Striking a balance between security needs and human rights concerns is certainly an important one. Selecting counter-terrorism strategies that limit human rights impingements may inherently address some of the tests of proportionality. The Israeli case, with its unique set of security challenges, provides an interesting laboratory to examine the relationship between counter-terrorism effectiveness and human rights maintenance. Taking a criminological approach to policing practices, in this chapter we highlight how key Israeli counter-terrorism policies combine situational prevention and focused deterrence approaches to achieve both proportionality and effectiveness.
|Name||International Human Rights |