The Evolution of the 1267 Sanctions Regime: Challenges & Prospects
- The Evolution of the 1267 Sanctions Regime: Challenges & Prospects
- Marchetti, Rebecca N.
- Thesis Advisor(s):
- Andreopoulos, George
- M.A., Columbia University
- Institute for the Study of Human Rights
- Persistent URL:
- Due process rights prevent the arbitrary deprivation of all other rights and liberties and ensure that the process undertaken to arrive at the determination of whether or when rights and liberties must be curtailed or deprived, is impartial and consistent. The creation and operation of special courts and due process mechanisms to combat terrorism has facilitated the perpetuation of counterterrorism measures that violate due process and further enabled the erosion of other internationally recognized human rights. Using qualitative methodology such as case analysis, legal research methods, process tracing, and comparative case studies, this thesis will evaluate the 1267 Regime’s human rights drawbacks, assess the judicial and institutional challenges brought against the Regime and their limited success but will ultimately conclude that the Regime still falls short of international human rights standards. Special judicial and quasijudicial institutions maintained for the purpose of countering terrorism, such as the 1267 Regime, are founded on due process exceptionalism, making it impossible for them to carry out the purpose for which they were created while upholding human rights. Thus, such paradigms are incompatible with human rights and must not be tolerated. However, the UN’s continued enforcement of the Regime through Resolutions that interrupt states’ compliance with their own human rights obligations may only serve to discredit the Regime and deter states from implementing the measures within its borders, which may nevertheless render the Regime ineffective.
- Human rights
Due process of law
- Item views
text | xml
- Suggested Citation:
- Rebecca N. Marchetti, 2017, The Evolution of the 1267 Sanctions Regime: Challenges & Prospects, Columbia University Academic Commons, https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DR31S6.