PROPOSAL

The impact of terrorism on foreign policy of UK

[Name of the Institute]The impact of terrorism on foreign policy of UK

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The UK governments responded to the rise in international terrorism by reviewing all existing regulations that could allegedly reduce the threat of terrorism. In re-regulating important laws, UK government authorities attained larger autonomy to collect information on citizens and non-citizens and to analyze these data more effectively. They limited the ability of militants to establish organized groups which may serve as nuclei for terror cells and made the infiltration of foreigners into their territory more difficult. The first response category encompasses restrictions to privacy rights (David, 2006, pp. 47). For example, before 11 September 2001 no country obliged companies to report 'suspect' information to secret services and police forces; in 2008, all but five countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain) had implemented this regulation. Banks in all but one country, Switzerland, now provide information on international bank transfers to security authorities. In 2000, this regulation existed only in the Netherlands.

Some countries, especially the UK and the USA, have now implemented the full battery of measures limiting privacy rights. In 2000, both countries guaranteed privacy rights almost completely. Before September 11, only France had implemented far-reaching reductions in privacy rights. Few countries refrained from giving extensive rights to secret services and police forces. The Scandinavian countries and Canada and Switzerland responded less than other Western liberal countries. Sweden restricted privacy rights only when policy domains were covered by the EU Common Position 2001/931/JHA of 27 December 2001 and the Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism. This legislative framework defines a common set of measures across European Union countries in order to deal with terrorism (Piazza, 2009, pp. 125).

Aims and Objectives

The objective of this paper is to describe and analyze the main guidelines UK foreign policy on the subject of international terrorism.

Background of the study

The UK government responded most radically to the terrorist attacks on their soil. The UK has now the longest period of detention without charge of all countries included in the sample. Pre-charge detention in Britain has increased substantively from 7 days in 2000 to 28 days in 2006. In comparison, Australia has the second longest pre-charge detention. Suspects can be held for a maximum of 12 days without charge. All other countries, including the USA, were more reluctant to provide police forces with similar extensive rights (Enders, 2006, pp. 77). In the USA, the period of pre-charge detention for criminal suspects, including those suspected of terrorist offences, cannot exceed 48 hours. Yet, the US government extended the rights of the FBI, the CIA, and the newly established Department of Homeland Security. New laws introduced exceptional criminal procedures (infiltration and detention, special searches, bugging devices, etc.) and broadened the range of circumstances in which phone tapping and night searches are permissible in cases of terrorism (Tsebelis, 1995, pp. 289).

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Impact of Terrorism on foreign policy of UK

Foreign nationals appear to be ...