Note: This paper appeared in the 6th Volume of the Journal on Terrorism and Security Analysis in Spring 2011.

Excerpt
Following 9/11, anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom became more stringent, thus widening the scope of offences that qualify as terrorist acts and encroaching on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the accused. Despite the distinction between the terms ‘anti-terrorism’ and ‘counter- terrorism’ they are often used interchangeably. Whereas counter-terrorism broadly refers to offensive measures of a preventive, deterrent and pre-emptive nature, anti-terrorism refers to the construction and use of defensive measures to reduce a terrorist threat. Anti- terrorism, by definition, is therefore narrower in scope.

The varied nature of terrorist offences necessitates a range of governmental responses, which poses difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of the UK anti- terrorism strategy by using a universal methodology. Instead a comparative approach is used to identify similarities between the anti-terrorism strategy in the United Kingdom and the United States. Besides the effectiveness of a strategy in achieving its political aims, legitimacy and public confidence are equally important factors, and thus emphasis is places on such factors. Continue reading (PDF)

About the authors
Dr. Emmanouela Mylonaki is a Senior Lecturer in Law at London South Bank University, UK and Director of Postgraduate Studies. Mylonaki holds an LLB from the University of Athens, an LLM in International Law University of Westminster, an MPhil in Criminology from Cambridge and a PhD in Law from Bristol University. Her academic research focuses broadly on international criminal law and more specifically on international terrorism and counter-terrorism legislation.

Tim Burton is a Crown Prosecutor currently working in London. He holds an LLB degree and an LLM in Crime and Litigation from London South Bank University. He is a guest lecturer on terrorism and policing at London South Bank University.