No ‘exceptionalism’

During the course of the 'war on terror', principles of rule of law – representing the core values of supremacy of law over arbitrary state powers – have come under serious attack, in many instances being undermined. States around the world have made regular justifications for violations of fundamental principles of human rights and human dignity based on the rhetoric of 'exceptionalism', the idea that threat from terrorists is so overwhelming that exceptional measures are justified, including undermining fundamental values of human rights. Over the past decade, the reliance on exceptionalism by governments across the region and the world has led to a long list of legally questionable actions, including the targeting of religious and ethnic minorities, indefinite detention, disappearances, extraordinary rendition, absence of fair trail, torture, physical and psychological abuse, and even killings.

Policies of exceptionalism have not only been highlighted in the practices of pariah states, military dictatorships and unstable democracies (for instance, Pakistan). In recent years such approaches have also become associated with liberal and established democracies such as the US, the UK and members of the European Union. In the context of the UK, for instance, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 authorised indefinite detention of foreign terror suspect and the probability of acceptance of evidence by UK domestic courts based on torture conducted by a foreign state outside of British jurisdiction. While both policies were deemed unacceptable by a committee of the House of Lords, their purported application illustrates violations of principles of rule of law. The passage of this legislation also inflicted considerable damage on the relationship between the British state and communities that felt most directly affected – ie, British Muslim minorities.