The democratic rule of law today has two facets: on the one hand, it constitutes
the body responsible for ensuring the maintenance of national security together with the
promotion of peace and, on the other hand, it becomes a direct threat to civil liberties
when this same security state is threatened by terrorist groups or individuals. The Rule of
Law is, so to speak, what guarantees the protection/security of citizens and, also, the same
that affronts fundamental freedoms. Reason of State and Emergency Democracy play, at
the same time, an important political role in this liberal-democratic constitutional
framework in the face of the threats of international terrorism. The world, in terms of the
security apparatus, is no longer the same after that morning of September 11, 2001.
Permanent surveillance policies, among other instruments, were implemented in several
countries, mainly in the United States of America, to prevent new terrorist attacks happen.
Among these security policies, in times of terrorist crisis, it is clearly perceived that the
ruler, representative of the executive power, through emergency powers granted by the
legislature, can use all available and appropriate resources for the conservation of the state
apparatus as all. This investigation argues around the maintenance of state security in the
face of the reduction of public liberties in the fight against international terrorism, through
the analysis of government documents from the main authorities involved in the planning
of the security doctrine of the United States of America, France, the European Union and
the United Nations regarding the war on terror and drawing a relationship between these
actions and the precepts theorists of the idea of reason of state.
|
