Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 19
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Loff, B. 2016. Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine.

    Stampnitzky, Lisa 2016. The lawyers’ war: states and human rights in a transnational field. The Sociological Review Monographs, Vol. 64, Issue. 2, p. 170.

    Tyler Dunford, David 2016. Legal nominalism: A reconceptualization of post-9/11 legal complexes. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice,

    Nath, Anjali 2015. A Companion to Contemporary Documentary Film.

    Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. 2014. International Refugee Law and Refugee Policy: The Case of Deterrence Policies. Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, p. 574.

    Jones, Richard 2014. The electronic monitoring of offenders: penal moderation or penal excess?. Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 62, Issue. 4, p. 475.

    DEN HEIJER, MAARTEN 2013. Diplomatic Asylum and the Assange Case. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue. 02, p. 399.

    Velloso, João 2013. Au-delà de la criminalisation : l’immigration et les enjeux pour la criminologie. Criminologie, Vol. 46, Issue. 1, p. 55.

    BIANCHI, ANDREA 2011. Terrorism and Armed Conflict: Insights from a Law & Literature Perspective. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, Issue. 01, p. 1.

    Marks, Susan 2011. Law and the Production of Superfluity. Transnational Legal Theory, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    Birdsall, Andrea 2010. ‘A monstrous failure of justice’? Guantanamo Bay and national security challenges to fundamental human rights. International Politics, Vol. 47, Issue. 6, p. 680.

    Ellis, Richard J 2010. 'I know for certain . . . that these are bad people': The Intractable Problem of Guantánamo. Comparative American Studies An International Journal, Vol. 8, Issue. 3, p. 169.

    Kal Raustiala, 2010. Al Maqaleh V. Gates, 605 F.3d 84. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, May 21, 2010.. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 104, Issue. 4, p. 647.

    Reid-Henry, Simon 2007. Exceptional Sovereignty? Guantánamo Bay and the Re-Colonial Present. Antipode, Vol. 39, Issue. 4, p. 627.

    Campbell, Colm and Connolly, Ita 2006. Making War on Terror? Global Lessons from Northern Ireland. Modern Law Review, Vol. 69, Issue. 6, p. 935.

    Kelly, Tobias 2006. "Jurisdictional Politics" in the Occupied West Bank: Territory, Community, and Economic Dependency in the Formation of Legal Subjects. Law <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&amp;"/> Social Inquiry, Vol. 31, Issue. 1, p. 39.

    More, Elizabeth 2006. The Guantanamo Detainees in America's ‘War on Terrorism’. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, p. 53.

    Poole, Thomas 2005. Harnessing the Power of the Past? Lord Hoffmann and the Belmarsh Detainees Case. Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, Issue. 4, p. 534.

    Zachary, Shlomy 2005. Between the Geneva Conventions: Where Does the Unlawful Combatant Belong?.. Israel Law Review, Vol. 38, Issue. 1-2, p. 378.

  • International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 53, Issue 1
  • January 2004, pp. 1-15

Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole1


The most powerful democracy is detaining hundreds of suspected foot soldiers of the Taliban in a legal black hole at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where they await trial on capital charges by military tribunals. This episode must be put in context. Democracies must defend themselves. Democracies are entitled to try officers and soldiers of enemy forces for war crimes. But it is a recurring theme in history that in times of war, armed conflict, or perceived national danger, even liberal democracies adopt measures infringing human rights in ways that are wholly disproportionate to the crisis. One tool at hand is detention without charge or trial, that is, executive detention. Ill-conceived rushed legislation is passed granting excessive powers to executive governments which compromise the rights and liberties of individuals beyond the exigencies of the situation. Often the loss of liberty is permanent. Executive branches of government, faced with a perceived emergency, often resort to excessive measures. The litany of grave abuses of power by liberal democratic governments is too long to recount, but in order to understand and to hold governments to account, we do well to take intoaccount the circles of history.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International & Comparative Law Quarterly
  • ISSN: 0020-5893
  • EISSN: 1471-6895
  • URL: /core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *