Neither Principled Nor Pragmatic?: International Law, International Terrorism and the Howard Government

Abstract

The Howard government's treatment of international law issues in response to international terrorism since 2001 was a significant, if understated, feature of its counter-terrorism policies and practices. This treatment of international law emerged in the situations of considerable domestic counter-terrorism legislative activity involving criminal offence matters, detention and questioning powers, telecommunications interception and access to stored information, preventative detention, control orders and sedition reforms, and procedures governing the handling, availability and application of information in national security curial matters. It also emerged in its counter-terrorism interactions with the United States, Asia-Pacific nations and United Nations bodies. In both contexts, actions of the Howard government were often characterised by a distinctive, exceptionalist interpretation of international law.