Abstract
This article charts how security‐cleared counsel have been constructed as a mechanism for managing the tension between security and fairness in secret trials and transferred across national boundaries as an example of ‘best practice', before going on to evaluate recent cross‐cultural and transnational research on this ‘best practice'. Particular attention is paid to the central role played by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in promoting the role of ‘special advocates’ and a contrast is made between the methodologies deployed by the Court and those used in recent research to identify and problematize ‘best practice’ within the closed world of security‐cleared counsel. The article then goes on to explore the relationship between ‘best practice’ and procedural tradition and argues that normative solutions advancing ‘best practice’ need to pay careful attention to the procedural contexts and cultures in which they are embedded.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.