Responding to Terrorism: How Must a Democracy Do It? A Comparison of Israeli and American Law
Israeli Law, American Law, Comparative Law, Terrorism, Democracy
This Comment compares the Israeli and American laws that sanction controversial responses to terrorism. It discusses criticisms of these laws with respect to human rights violations and how, if at all, the two governments strive to preserve their law's effectiveness without violating international standards. Part I of this comment briefly discusses the origins of terrorism and establishes a universal definition for the word. Part II reviews the history of three Israeli responses to terrorism, including 1) administrative detention, 2) torture, and 3) the demolition of houses; and describes how these tactics are criticized domestically as well as internationally. Part II further illustrates the present status of relevant Israeli statutory and case law. Finally, Part III discusses comparable measures recently taken by the United States and how these responses are criticized. The importance of a democracy's need to "respond appropriately" to terrorism and the difficulty that flows with it will be stressed throughout this comment.
Responding to Terrorism: How Must a Democracy Do It? A Comparison of Israeli and American Law,
31 Fordham Urb. L.J. 261
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol31/iss1/10