Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
She holds a PhD in law from the European University Institute in Florence and is specialized in human rights and political theory. Her publications include Human Rights, Culture and the Rule of Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2005); 'The Impact of Cultural Diversity on International Criminal Proceedings' (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 745; and 'Freedom from Fear in the International Judicial Process' [2004] NYU Journal of Human Rights. This article is part of her research which focuses on the reconcilability of respect for human rights with security considerations in countering terrorism.
I.
Introduction
Litigation involving individuals and entities (persons) whose names have been listed and whose assets have been frozen in response to counter-terrorism measures that have been adopted by the UN Security Council (SC) within the framework of Chapter VII of the UN Charter is on the rise around the world. Several domestic courts, including in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Netherlands, Turkey and Pakistan have come to grapple with lawsuits from blacklisted persons.1 Another remarkable example is the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ie the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice) (also referred to in this article as 'the Community Courts'). So far, the Court of First Instance (CFI) has delivered no less than seven orders2 (six on interim relief and one on legal aid) as well as seven judgments3 on the merits of complaints concerning 'targeted' sanctions, and the Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled in relation to four appeals.4 Additionally, seven new complaints have been filed and lie in the docket waiting to be heard.5 And, more cases have been appealed to the ECJ.6
The absence in international and regional counter-terrorism instruments of explicit opportunities for targeted persons to turn to court with their complaints against targeted sanctions has not paralysed those who claim to be victims of such sanctions, nor has it prevented courts from performing their basic functions.7 Nevertheless, a more careful examination of emerging jurisprudence in this area, in particular that of the Community Courts, reveals a bleaker reality: all complaints except for two have been dismissed or declared as inadmissible.8 On the face of...