What human rights commission emphasise upon is to maintain peacekeeping and peacemaking in a political context, this is usually done by military as counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations. Since political nature of such operations have their own demands that deviate from those of human rights, in which every officer, non-commissioned, and soldier involved is well aware that even the most minor action by the military may carry with it major political consequences. What these operations have in difference with human rights is the close political scrutiny and control, and therefore, they require intimate civil, military, and police cooperation at all times. Human rights negate the use of military means i.e., firepower, mass, mobility, speed, which is subjected to the political limitations imposed on the conduct of the campaign. The objection is upon the usage of weapons and tactics employed for they must be proportional to the military response and must be commensurate with the political reality2.
Reconciling the demands of the two philosophies of one subject enables ...
iracy is difficult to reconcile with that of human rights commission, but Britain's CJTCA4 is trying hard to cope up with unfavourable suppositions on behalf of any police officer's opinion to reconcile with the fair trial provisions of the HRA (Human Rights Act)5. However HRA negates CJTCA to anticipate judges and juries drawing inferences from a suspect's silence while in the custody of police interrogation. Other issues that oppose HRA is the significance of the opinion as an evidence of a senior police officer that a defendant is a member of a terrorist group is also admissible at trial.
Since many of the international treaties focusing on 'anti-terrorism' agrees that national courts and conferred supplementary, non-exclusive jurisdiction need not to focus very clearly on any threshold for jurisdiction in terms of the gravity or systematic character of the crimes covered. Such treaties believe that individual acts covered by the suppression treaties could be relatively routine or could be not very different in quality from serious acts of terrorism6. Jurisdiction possess the authority to exercise over them but the acts themselves as considered in isolation are extra ordinary that by contrast are unable to be given international jurisdiction. However terrorism crime is above the most common and most serious problems, at the high end of the spectrum of international crimes, which once were considered as crimes against humanity and war crimes in internal armed conflict.
Since anti-terrorism law covers the availability of jurisdiction over genocide and has tended to lead to arguments for a broader interpretation of the definition of genocide, therefore terrorism must not be dealt with a soft corner of human rights as it may pave the way to happen in other crimes.