Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article undertakes a comparative analysis of two cases, Hong Kong and South Korea, each characterized by distinct levels of political and civil liberties to elucidate how the institutionalization of national security operates in shaping the repertoires of popular political actions and the repressive conduct of state actors. In both cases, the legal frameworks serve to curtail popular political action, both online and offline, often through discretionary applications of national security norms, resulting in ambiguity. They bestow legitimacy upon state agencies to engage in protest policing, surveillance, and the suppression of individuals or organizations in the name of upholding national security. In contrast, the national security laws in Hong Kong and South Korea, influenced by varying interpretations and applications of perceived threats to national security, result in differences in the extent and degree of contentious political actions and state repression.

This thesis seeks to understand the factors that drove the Australian Parliament's response to exceptional national security laws proposed in times of 'crisis'. It employs case studies, doctrinal analysis, legal history, and literature relating to emergency laws. It selects two periods of 'crisis' for study - the Cold War and the 'War on Terror' - and examines the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth), the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth). Parliamentarians viewed the related Bills as extraordinary legislative proposals designed for extraordinary or emergency times or situations. These characterisations suggested that the work of legal scholar Oren Gross could, potentially, throw light on Parliament's legislative processes. Gross has written extensively on law in times of crisis. He hypothesises that a number of factors work towards our acceptance of exceptional laws. The first is the assumption of constitutionality - our belief that such laws fall within the bounds of constitutional and legal norms. The second is the assumption of separation. This assumption includes our belief that emergency laws will be temporary, that they will apply to 'others' not to 'us', and that national security is a separate sphere about which we defer to the Executive Government. The thesis explores whether Parliament's response to proposals for national security laws can be explained in terms of Gross's assumptions of constitutionality and separation. It uses Hansard to examine whether and, if so, how Parliament engaged with constitutional and legal norms and whether the transcripts of debate reveal evidence of Gross's assumption of separation. My analysis suggests that Gross's assumptions provide a partial explanation of the factors that drove the Australian Parliament when it was presented with Bills for exceptional national security laws. It also reveals the influence of other factors ...

Other written product issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "GAO reviewed the applicability of environmental laws to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), focusing on whether: (1) the National Nuclear Security Administration Act narrows the waivers of sovereign immunity contained in existing environmental, safety, and health laws that apply to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the NNSA; and (2) a bill now before the Committee on Commerce (H.R. 4288) might, if enacted, be interpreted to expand the application of existing environmental, safety, and health laws as they will be applied to the NNSA. GAO noted that the NNSA Act clearly states that current law will apply to the NNSA exactly as it applied to the NNSA's functions when performed previously by DOE. The continuation of current law necessarily carries forward all waivers of sovereign immunity in existing law, making further clarification superfluous. The proposed amendments in H.R. 4288 may have the inadvertent effect of expanding or confusing existing waivers of sovereign immunity."

Conference on Constitution and Human Rights last year in the same place highlighted the importance of national security laws in certain countries in Asia. Although for Indonesia this law was not the issue discussed in last years conference, development in international politics since 11 September 2001 brought about deeper discourse on this type of law in the country. Terrorist attack on the United States (US) has started war against terrorism. Though not admitted, this war has been broadened to a war against Islamic community across the globe. This issue is important for Asia, as many of the Asian countries are the population. Many measures have been taken to deal with war against terrorism in the international level. One important measure is the imposition to initiate a set of legal instruments to smoothen legal procedures against international terrorist organisations through, among others, the establishment of new national security laws related to international terrorist and multilateral and bilateral agreement on the investigation of international terrorist organisations. Indonesia is not an exception in this development, especially because it is a country with the biggest Moslem population in the world and the socio-political instability across the country. The US stated its allegation of the existence of Al Qaeda-related terrorist organisation in Indonesia. An Indonesian citizen was also investigated by the US for the allegation of being a member of Al Qaeda. The draft law on Anti-Terrorism is discussed in Indonesia at this moment and shortly will be presented before the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR, Indonesian parliament) by the government. This draft law contains special measures on terrorism as is underscored after 11 September 2001, different with national security law which Indonesia does not have until now due to the protest against the draft law on the State of Emergency (Undang-Undang tentang Penanggulangan Keadaan Bahaya, UU PKB) in 1999. As indicated in the program of this workshop, the aim of the workshop is to compare changes in security laws in several countries of the region and to discuss the implications of these changes for constitutions and human rights. Therefore, this paper will not only discuss the draft law on Anti-Terrorism, but also will briefly discuss the previous laws related to national security in order to observe the special measures which put aside human rights under the name of national security, as a basis to further discuss the issue in the workshop.

State terror in Asia has long been used to fight what governments have unilaterally declared as terror. Wars and counterinsurgency have long been pursued as a strategy against terrorism in Asia, and the war against terrorism has always been made an excuse by states to promote militarist and authoritarian dictatorships supporting Western expansionist, strategic and economic objectives. Today, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent declaration by the United States of a global war on terrorism has created a pretext for governments to extend and justify the use of draconian national security laws and measures to suppress movements for democracy and human rights. The common features of such laws and actionspast and present-- include: · arbitrary detention without charge or trial; · the criminalization of communities, organizations and individuals by labeling them as terrorist; · the undermining of due process; · the reinforcement of repressive practices, including torture, by state authorities; · restrictions on freedom of movement and return to asylum; · the intensification of all forms of racism and discrimination--including those based on gender, caste and religion--against migrants, refugees and minorities; and · the invasion of privacy through activities like increased surveillance. In responding to perceived threats to national security, the security of individuals, communities and societies are often neglected by the state. There is no mention of the terrorism of poverty which, as Aruna Gnanadason, head of the Justice and Peace Unit of the World Council of Churches, notes, kills more people than any war. It is a form of terrorism that is often neglected, especially in the present era where neo-liberal globalization has worsened the conditions of the already marginalized peoples of the world. Neo-liberal economic policies have resulted in the erosion of Asian peoples standards of living and created structural inequality, insecurity, tensions and conflict brought about by the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. Social injustice and inequities, including state policies that exacerbate poverty, unemployment, landless-ness and lack of social services, are the No. 1 recruiters and breeding ground for so-called terrorists. Thus, when people face severe threats to livelihood, rights and living standards that have been greatly eroded by neo-liberal globalization (it used to be colonialism and feudal oppression), their protests and demands, particularly when voiced by peoples movements, are treated as security threats by the state. The state increases its reliance on the use of force through police/armies that inflict violence on the people. The exercise of state violence is even legalized and justified through national security laws that are meant to establish order. As more and more people resist and seek alternatives to the dehumanizing world order resulting from the policies and practices of neo-liberal globalization, there is a need to widen the democratic space, not restrict it or shrink it further. In this situation, more democratic space is needed for the expression of grievances. Oftentimes, however, the peoples mass organizations, social movements, labor unions, grassroots citizens groups and non-government organizations that articulate peoples demands and alternatives, become the targets of anti-terrorist legislation. Militarism and the adoption and use of draconian laws and measures as a reaction to peoples demands have often been resorted to by states under the garb of curbing terrorism.

The Amended Basic Law of 2003 stipulates: 'The security forces and the police shall be regulated by law.'1 This clause was already present in the very early drafts of the Palestinian 'quasi-constitution'. Yet, after more than ten years of Palestinian self-rule, there is little legislation regulating the work of the security organisations of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). In fact, they still operate in a partial legal vacuum. As the Israeli-Palestinian agreements provided the basis for the establishing of the security organisations, the PNA felt little need to endow them with a sound legal basis. It was only after the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000 that the absence of a legal framework for the PNA security sector became a problem. The deteriorating security situation and the rise of armed groups called for efficient security organisations. But in order to build stronger security organisations, their mandates and accountability mechanisms needed to be defined by law. Rather reluctantly, the late PNA President Yasser Arafat in August 2004 called upon the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) 'to elaborate the necessary laws to ensure an efficient and controlled working of the security forces.

My starting point may be different to that of some people here. I believe that the Australian federal Parliament should enact new anti-terrorism laws. After September 11, such laws are required from the perspective of community confidence and also to fulfill Australias international obligations. Before September 11, there were no federal laws dealing specifically with terrorism (in fact such laws could only be found in the Northern Territory ). While we need a national legislative response to terrorism, any new laws must strike a balance between national defence and security, and important public values and fundamental human rights. We must not pass laws that damage the same democratic freedoms we are seeking to protect from terrorism. My paper today addresses whether the Governments legislative response to September 11 has achieved the right balance. I argue that it has clearly failed to do so. In fact, the Bills introduced in March 2002 into Parliament pose as great a threat to Australian democracy as Prime Minister Robert Menzies attempt to ban communism in 1950. If passed, the new terrorism bills may do more to undermine the long term health of our democratic system than any threat currently posed by terrorism. I will begin with an examination of the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 (Terrorism Bill). That Bill has now been enacted by Parliament, but only after being substantially amended to meet a number of objections. I then examine the ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 (ASIO Bill), which has yet to be passed and arguably poses the greater threat to our democratic system.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 -- Federal Information Security and Data Breach Notification Laws* -- Summary -- Background -- Federal Information Security and Data Breach Notification Laws -- Federal Sector -- Privacy Act -- Federal Information Security Management Act -- Office of Management and Budget "Breach Notification Policy" -- Veterans Affairs Information Security Act -- Private Sector -- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -- Privacy Standard -- Security Standard -- Subtitle D (Privacy) of Title XIII of the ARRA -- Application of the HIPAA Security Provisions and -- Penalties to Business Associates -- Breach Notification -- Notice of Unauthorized Disclosure of Protected Health Information -- Notice of Unauthorized Disclosure of Personal Health Records -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- Privacy Rule -- FTC Safeguards Rule -- Information Security Guidelines -- Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer Notice -- Federal Trade Commission Act -- Fair Credit Reporting Act, as Amended by the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act -- Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard -- End Notes -- Chapter 2 -- Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information* -- Summary -- Background -- Federal Laws Governing Consumer Financial Information Held by Financial Companies -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley's Privacy Provisions -- Public and Industry Reaction -- The European Union Data Directive -- The Role of the CFPB and the 112th Congress -- End Notes -- Chapter 3 -- Online Data Collection and Disclosure to Private Entities: Selected Federal Laws and Self-Regulatory Regimes* -- Summary -- Introduction -- Current Laws -- Federal Trade Commission Act -- Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- The Wiretap Act -- The Online Advertising Provider -- The Internet Service Provider (ISP)