Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?

<p>A challenge for any democratic republic is to establish modes of governance that can effectively defeat or mitigate national security threats while also preserving freedoms and public accountability. To many, especially during national security crises, courts are expected to act as guardian...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Waxman, M
Other Authors: The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies
Format: Report
Language:English
Published: Foundation for Law, Justice and Society 2009
Subjects:
_version_ 1797082956252053504
author Waxman, M
author2 The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies
author_facet The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies
Waxman, M
author_sort Waxman, M
collection OXFORD
description <p>A challenge for any democratic republic is to establish modes of governance that can effectively defeat or mitigate national security threats while also preserving freedoms and public accountability. To many, especially during national security crises, courts are expected to act as guardians of liberty and the boundaries of state power.</p> <p>Historically, US courts have played an important but cautious role in checking aggressive executive actions, and the Supreme Court’s responses to enemy combatant detention practices demonstrate familiar historical patterns of judicial intervention during national security crises.</p> <p>The experience with enemy combatant detentions also illustrates the strategic importance of legitimacy. Whatever their limitations, courts are uniquely suited to provide decision-making legitimacy because of their relative political independence and their deliberative virtues.</p>
first_indexed 2024-03-07T01:35:16Z
format Report
id oxford-uuid:94f42bf3-e933-4bbc-9e28-af38c6fc3b68
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T01:35:16Z
publishDate 2009
publisher Foundation for Law, Justice and Society
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:94f42bf3-e933-4bbc-9e28-af38c6fc3b682022-03-26T23:42:58ZCan courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?Reporthttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_93fcuuid:94f42bf3-e933-4bbc-9e28-af38c6fc3b68Democratic governmentSocio-legal studiesPublic policyAmerican politicsEnglishOxford University Research Archive - ValetFoundation for Law, Justice and Society2009Waxman, MThe Centre for Socio-Legal Studies<p>A challenge for any democratic republic is to establish modes of governance that can effectively defeat or mitigate national security threats while also preserving freedoms and public accountability. To many, especially during national security crises, courts are expected to act as guardians of liberty and the boundaries of state power.</p> <p>Historically, US courts have played an important but cautious role in checking aggressive executive actions, and the Supreme Court’s responses to enemy combatant detention practices demonstrate familiar historical patterns of judicial intervention during national security crises.</p> <p>The experience with enemy combatant detentions also illustrates the strategic importance of legitimacy. Whatever their limitations, courts are uniquely suited to provide decision-making legitimacy because of their relative political independence and their deliberative virtues.</p>
spellingShingle Democratic government
Socio-legal studies
Public policy
American politics
Waxman, M
Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?
title Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?
title_full Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?
title_fullStr Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?
title_full_unstemmed Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?
title_short Can courts be ‘trusted’ in national security crises?
title_sort can courts be trusted in national security crises
topic Democratic government
Socio-legal studies
Public policy
American politics
work_keys_str_mv AT waxmanm cancourtsbetrustedinnationalsecuritycrises