Equality of Arms: International Human Rights Law in Terrorism Prosecutions.

The United States, United Kingdom and other nations implemented national security policies and operations after 9/11 that revealed a gap between capabilities and insecurity, and established a gap between counter-terrorism operations and international human rights law. For example, when states prosecute or detain suspected terrorists they often due so on the basis of secret evidence. This creates a gap between the state's national security operations and international human rights law protections. I examine how the U.S. and U.K. have challenged fair trial rights when prosecuting alleged terrorists and how domestic, regional and international courts have responded. I demonstrate that international human rights law severely limits governments from prosecuting and detaining terrorism suspects based on secret evidence. Based on this law, I propose rules to attain a balance between national security and fair trial rights. These would narrow the gap between national security operations and international law, and in turn narrow the gap between capabilities and insecurity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]