Resolution 1373 Essay

It is an undeniable fact that the growth of terrorism studies gain its momentum only after the 9/11 attacks. Resolution 1373 by the UN Security Council started off the world-wide crusade against the terrorists by all member states. In the international arena, we have witnessed military deployment as well as significant changes to the international legal framework. Even more significant has been the drastic steps taken by liberal democracies what would have been the benchmark for good governance, transparency, due process and individual freedom. The sacrifices that these countries have been prepared to make to the liberty of their citizen in order to pursue security raises alarm bells on their commitment to the rule of law values and democratic

There is no doubt that much have been written on these issues since 9/11, but the primary focus of this research is on national responses to terrorist threats using legislative tools, besides investigating to what extent it has impinged the ordinary grain of law and justice in Malaysia.
During the passage of POTA as the Malaysian new anti-terror law, there were many critiques advanced by its detractors including the Human Rights Watch. One of the fiercest critics came from the Malaysian Bar in a detailed report that claimed POTA not only an affront to the Rule of law; it is abhorrent to the principle of natural justice. Highlights of POTA’s controversial features that are objectionable are: detention up to 60 days for investigative purposes, denial of right to legal representation, ouster of judicial scrutiny and detention without trial up to two years. In our nation’s history, preventive detention without trial is like a plague ever since the draconian ISA was broadly used to fight communist insurgency after our independence. Despite the assurance given by the Home