15 Sep Challenging the Non-Controversial Part of the War on Terrorism
One of the crucial weapons used by the U.S. government in the war on terrorism has been the freezing of financial assets linked to or believed to be related to Al Qaeda. This is one U.S. anti-terrorism policy that has generally received wide support within the U.S. (unlike some other policies) as well as broad support from the U.N. Security Council and from leading European allies.
But we may finally be seeing some push back. A Swedish national who claims his assets were wrongly frozen by U.S. and European authorities is planning to bring a claim into the European Court of Human Rights, according to this report. It sounds like a tough case, but it will raise interesting questions for that court about the hierarchy of norms e.g. between a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing and requiring anti-terrorism policies and the European Convention of Human Rights. Something to keep an eye on.
This is interesting. At least I have always thought that the freezing of financial assets without any due process and no possibility of judicial review is on the contrary one of the most controversial issues. Nevertheless, that the Yusuf case will go to the ECtHR is quite natural. Although, we should probably wait first what the European Court of Justice will say, where the case is now under appeal (together with the similar Kadi case). Looking forward for the judgments. (and fingers crossed – the SC must be one day send a message that it cannot do whatever it wants)