A substantial number of anti-terrorism laws have been adopted in Australia and overseas since 9/11.  While such laws have been seldom used in Australia, their passage and occasional use have provoked extraordinary political and legal controversy, as illustrated by the recent case of Dr Mohammed Haneef.  On 15 August at the Wednesday Lunch at Lowy, Dr Ben Saul compared Australia's response to that of a number of other democracies and asked whether Australia's laws are a necessary evil, or whether they signal the twilight of the rule of law. 

Dr Ben Saul is Director of the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law at the Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney.

A substantial number of anti-terrorism laws have been adopted in Australia and overseas since 9/11.  While such laws have been seldom used in Australia, their passage and occasional use have provoked extraordinary political and legal controversy, as illustrated by the recent case of Dr Mohammed Haneef.  On 15 August at the Wednesday Lunch at Lowy, Dr Ben Saul compared Australia's response to that of a number of other democracies and asked whether Australia's laws are a necessary evil, or whether they signal the twilight of the rule of law. <br><br>Dr Ben Saul is Director of the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law at the Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney.

Event audio and podcasts from the Lowy Institute

<p>Event audio and podcasts from the Lowy Institute</p>

Lowy Institute Archive

A substantial number of anti-terrorism laws have …