English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The dramatic attacks of 11 September 2001 in the US, which consisted of the simultaneous hijacking of four planes, and resulted in thousands of victims1 in the heart of New York and Washington, had an overwhelming impact on the world. The scale and nature of the attacks and the means used showed the strength and resolve of a terrorist group, the damage that can be caused by a few determined and organized individuals, the vulnerability of some of the world’s key financial and defence centres, and the exposure of aviation transportation to terrorist attacks. Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the response given to these unprecedented attacks was calm and a clear resolve from the world’s leaders that such crimes, and those who caused them, would not prevail over ‘shared values’ of democracy, freedom, the rule of law and human rights.2 Unfortunately, the legal response that followed – from the Security Council to governments – was very different. It was soon argued that the new threat of terrorism from various groups in several parts of the world was such that it threatened the very existence of democracy. Countering terrorism was rebranded the ‘war against terror’ and the existing international legal framework was deemed insufficient to address the new paradigm. New rules, a new approach unconstrained by existing rules of international law, were necessary. The choice was clear: security or human rights. With the former clearly taking the lead to the detriment of

Key trends in the fight against terrorism and key aspects of international human rights law