Law and Security
Lecture 1: intro in law and security
Why is there a tension between law and security
Security crises might pose fundamental challenges
- The motive of the fs between security and liberty is recurrent in democratic debate –in
connection with wars, but also in relation to other cases where internal or external threats-
are seen as requiring the sacrifice of liberty to guarantee survival.
- Such tension can hardly arise in non-democracies, where liberties might be perceived as a
threat themselves by those in power, while a democracy cannot survive as such without
safeguarding liberty
- The question of the relations between liberty and security , and the very working of
democracies, has been experienced and debated in connection to the attacks of 11
September 2001 but also after the so-called migration crisis and the renew series of terrorist
attacks between 2015 and 2018 in Europe (and the diverse responses to them)
Security crises might pose fundamental challenges, especially in democracies
- reminder security is a precondition for the proper functioning of a liberal order
- likely to unveil contestation and dissatisfaction with existing legal limits on government’s
powers.
- public pressure
- what is the role of legal limits on the executive when citizens themselves demand more
security and allowing officials legal flexibility of action seems necessary
THE DILEMMA?
- Existance of contrasting arguments, especially when governments seek to to prevent a
security crisis rather than simply react to it (Posner 2006)
- In order to prevent crises of such proportions, the executive must have the means to act
proactively making of discretionary powers a tool for crisis management (Schmitt 1934)
- Liberty-reducing policies reduce security (Sanchez-Cuenca and de la Calle 2009; Dragu &
Polborn 2014)
What are the limits to the exercise of monopoly of use of force in democratic societies?
- Breaches to legal principles might be considered justified and normalized..but to what
extent?
- What kind of impact do these measures have on social, civic and human rights and freedoms
of citizens & specific minorities and groups such as religious communities or migrants?
1. TENSION BETWEEN SECURITY OF THE STATE AND SECURITY OF INDIVIDUALS
-Security of many vs. security of some
2. TENSION BETWEEN LIBERTY AND SECURITY
-(Public/national) Security vs. individual freedoms
3. TENSION BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY
-Security (surveillance) vs. individual privacy
4. USE OF EMERGENCY POWERS – SECURITISATION
-Justifiability of security vs. individual security
CONNECTION BETWEEN LEGAL REGIMES & INTERPRETATION OF SECURIT(IES)
- Different responsibilities of security depending on the applicable legal regime AND existing
political regime
,IMPORTANT:
- Law and legal regimes are the product of certain specific historical development and
predominance of certain political interests in that specific moment
- BUT…societies and (in)securities change: legal regimes should change
- SO...need to understand what regime applies a certain ‘security’ situation
- BUT ALSO: the problems and tensions between different interests/values associated to a
certain political setting..
What are the functions of law:
1. Order (security): Essential prerequisite of a society. By providing order, law provides the
secuirity that facilitates social and political development
2. Justice: overall; fairness, moral rightness, and a scheme or system of law in which every
person receives their due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.
Derrida (1990): justice as a POLITICAL CONCEPT
- Doing justice means giving what is DUE à balancing competing claims and dealing fairly with
all parties
- Necessary ideal, a horizon towards which the best impulses of human civilization are directed
- Think about the debate between equality & equity
Kinds of law:
- Customary law
- Religious law
CIVIL LAW: Romano-Germanic (continental), codified (legal texts + scholars)
COMMON LAW: Anglo-American, originally unwritten case law + precedents …BUT….. cross
pollination!
, Course lab 1:
The general principle of use of force in law enforcement
1. The Principle of Necessity:
- It consists of three elements:
a. Law enforcement officials should use non-violent means whenever possible before resorting to
physical force.
b. Force must be used only for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
c. Force must be the minimum necessary force that is reasonable in the prevailing circumstances.
- Non-violent means should be applied before using force, and force should be used only if
other means are ineffective.
- The use of force must be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose, such as preventing crime
or making a lawful arrest.
- Force must never be used vindictively, discriminatorily, or against an individual offering no
resistance.
- Force should be no more than the minimum reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
2. The Principle of Proportionality:
- Proportionality does not mean an equal response to violence but sets a ceiling on lawful use
of force based on the threat posed and the offense committed.
- It comes into play if the principle of necessity is respected.
- The use of force must already be necessary, and the force used must be no more than the
minimum necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.
- Proportionality prevents the use of force that is disproportionate to the legitimate objective
to be achieved.
3. The Principle of Precaution:
- It underpins the principles of necessity and proportionality.
- The state is duty-bound to plan law enforcement operations to minimize the risk of
potentially lethal force being used.
Lecture 1: intro in law and security
Why is there a tension between law and security
Security crises might pose fundamental challenges
- The motive of the fs between security and liberty is recurrent in democratic debate –in
connection with wars, but also in relation to other cases where internal or external threats-
are seen as requiring the sacrifice of liberty to guarantee survival.
- Such tension can hardly arise in non-democracies, where liberties might be perceived as a
threat themselves by those in power, while a democracy cannot survive as such without
safeguarding liberty
- The question of the relations between liberty and security , and the very working of
democracies, has been experienced and debated in connection to the attacks of 11
September 2001 but also after the so-called migration crisis and the renew series of terrorist
attacks between 2015 and 2018 in Europe (and the diverse responses to them)
Security crises might pose fundamental challenges, especially in democracies
- reminder security is a precondition for the proper functioning of a liberal order
- likely to unveil contestation and dissatisfaction with existing legal limits on government’s
powers.
- public pressure
- what is the role of legal limits on the executive when citizens themselves demand more
security and allowing officials legal flexibility of action seems necessary
THE DILEMMA?
- Existance of contrasting arguments, especially when governments seek to to prevent a
security crisis rather than simply react to it (Posner 2006)
- In order to prevent crises of such proportions, the executive must have the means to act
proactively making of discretionary powers a tool for crisis management (Schmitt 1934)
- Liberty-reducing policies reduce security (Sanchez-Cuenca and de la Calle 2009; Dragu &
Polborn 2014)
What are the limits to the exercise of monopoly of use of force in democratic societies?
- Breaches to legal principles might be considered justified and normalized..but to what
extent?
- What kind of impact do these measures have on social, civic and human rights and freedoms
of citizens & specific minorities and groups such as religious communities or migrants?
1. TENSION BETWEEN SECURITY OF THE STATE AND SECURITY OF INDIVIDUALS
-Security of many vs. security of some
2. TENSION BETWEEN LIBERTY AND SECURITY
-(Public/national) Security vs. individual freedoms
3. TENSION BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY
-Security (surveillance) vs. individual privacy
4. USE OF EMERGENCY POWERS – SECURITISATION
-Justifiability of security vs. individual security
CONNECTION BETWEEN LEGAL REGIMES & INTERPRETATION OF SECURIT(IES)
- Different responsibilities of security depending on the applicable legal regime AND existing
political regime
,IMPORTANT:
- Law and legal regimes are the product of certain specific historical development and
predominance of certain political interests in that specific moment
- BUT…societies and (in)securities change: legal regimes should change
- SO...need to understand what regime applies a certain ‘security’ situation
- BUT ALSO: the problems and tensions between different interests/values associated to a
certain political setting..
What are the functions of law:
1. Order (security): Essential prerequisite of a society. By providing order, law provides the
secuirity that facilitates social and political development
2. Justice: overall; fairness, moral rightness, and a scheme or system of law in which every
person receives their due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.
Derrida (1990): justice as a POLITICAL CONCEPT
- Doing justice means giving what is DUE à balancing competing claims and dealing fairly with
all parties
- Necessary ideal, a horizon towards which the best impulses of human civilization are directed
- Think about the debate between equality & equity
Kinds of law:
- Customary law
- Religious law
CIVIL LAW: Romano-Germanic (continental), codified (legal texts + scholars)
COMMON LAW: Anglo-American, originally unwritten case law + precedents …BUT….. cross
pollination!
, Course lab 1:
The general principle of use of force in law enforcement
1. The Principle of Necessity:
- It consists of three elements:
a. Law enforcement officials should use non-violent means whenever possible before resorting to
physical force.
b. Force must be used only for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
c. Force must be the minimum necessary force that is reasonable in the prevailing circumstances.
- Non-violent means should be applied before using force, and force should be used only if
other means are ineffective.
- The use of force must be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose, such as preventing crime
or making a lawful arrest.
- Force must never be used vindictively, discriminatorily, or against an individual offering no
resistance.
- Force should be no more than the minimum reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
2. The Principle of Proportionality:
- Proportionality does not mean an equal response to violence but sets a ceiling on lawful use
of force based on the threat posed and the offense committed.
- It comes into play if the principle of necessity is respected.
- The use of force must already be necessary, and the force used must be no more than the
minimum necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.
- Proportionality prevents the use of force that is disproportionate to the legitimate objective
to be achieved.
3. The Principle of Precaution:
- It underpins the principles of necessity and proportionality.
- The state is duty-bound to plan law enforcement operations to minimize the risk of
potentially lethal force being used.
