This paper questions the claim that British militarized security strategy in Northern Ireland offers a model for the global`war against terrorism' by exploring the critically important (though neglected) Falls Curfew' episode. Part one explores the relationship between law, legitimacy, and the role of the military in democracies experiencing violent conflict. Part two examines the operationalization of the law on military intervention during the curfew, drawing on archival material and employing empirical studies. Part three draws overall conclusions, relating the contribution that the curfew made to the escalation of the conflict to its operational aspects and legal underpinnings. Failings are identified, and some general lessons drawn out about the dangers of a`war' model in complex and violent political disorders.Official British discourse in the wake of the 9/11 atrocities presents militarized security strategy in Northern Ireland as a model for prosecuting the global`war against terrorism'. 1 The claim begs an obvious rejoinder: if the Army's role in Northern Ireland provides an example to be followed, 341 ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003,

In place of the simple modelling employed in anti‐terrorist legal discourse, this article posits an interactive model of the relationship between the state and violent political actors, exploring law's role in both the repression and mobilisation of challengers. Drawing on social movement theory, it hypothesises a process of ‘legally implicated mobilisation’ which takes account both of law's presence and its partial absence in ‘legal grey zones’ during violent conflict, and it suggests how law may impact upon key elements of the mobilisation process. The hypothesis is applied to qualitative data from Northern Ireland on violent challengers. The data point to the importance of ‘messaging’ about law in the state of exception, supporting claims that law can have a ‘damping’ effect on violent conflict. The relationship between repression and violence is partly symbiotic, and in the global ‘war on terror,’ prisoner‐abuse may have a mobilising effect on violent challengers.

No abstract

No abstract