This chapter is dedicated to the role of the potential opposition in autocracies. It deals with the various forms of repressing dissent and how autocratic incumbents keep the opposition at bay. Like the previous and the subsequent chapters, it condenses in a first step our current knowledge about the topic, carving out the lessons learned for the conceptualization of the over-politicizing and de-politicizing logics. It introduces the broad distinction between soft and hard forms of repression. While the former violates civil liberties and political rights, the latter infringes upon the person’s integrity rights. It is argued that over-politicizing autocracies seek to justify even the usage of hard repression by inflating a friend-foe distinction and declaring an internal foe. In contrast, de-politicizing regimes avoid using this type of repression, as it risks breaking the silent autocratic contract between the passivated people and the regime that is supposed to materially deliver.

This chapter introduces those rights and freedoms that are considered core to the democratic process. Those freedoms (often labelled ‘civil liberties’) ensure that individuals are able to circulate and obtain information freely, are able to participate in the election of representatives (and governments) and are able to peacefully – and collectively – make public demonstrations of political viewpoints without incurring criminal sanctions. In turn this chapter will therefore consider freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the liberty and security of the person, and the right to vote.

In this Chapter, I use American mass incarceration and the War on Drugs to draw conclusions about the increasing use of the criminal justice system to combat the abuse of non-human animals. I conclude that expanding criminal sanctions will result not just in increased incarceration, but in net-widening and deprivation of civil liberties. Furthermore, such negative effects are likely to be unequally distributed, falling most heavily on communities of color.

Since the 1970s, the campaigns of animal protection advocates have been met with increasingly draconian government response, reflected in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s post-9/11 classification of animal rights activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Animal advocates—who have never harmed a human being—have been targeted by expanded federal and state anti-terrorism legislation, disproportionate prison sentences, sweeping new surveillance powers, and experimental prison units, among other attacks. This article explores how, and why, the civil rights and civil liberties community have largely ignored—and in some cases even embraced— the carceral logic of criminalizing animal rights activists as “terrorists.”

In this chapter we present our recommendations for how the policy landscape in the U.S. and other liberal democracies should respond to the opportunities and challenges brought on by quantum information science. These recommendations are informed by the four scenarios of quantum futures combined with the understanding of technology capabilities we discussed in Part I. We begin this chapter by putting our cards on the table and presenting our policy goals. We then explore how to achieve these goals using traditional policy levers: direct investments, education, and law. We conclude with a discussion of national security issues.

Quantum sensing, computing, and communication offer some significant improvements on classical technologies, in some cases create fundamentally new capabilities. Quantum technologies are quickly arriving. Even if the most hyped promises in quantum computing are not realized in the next decade, in the near term quantum sensing could shift relationships irrevocably. This book has painted the landscape of quantum's implications---from nation-state concerns of strategic conflict, intelligence gathering, and law enforcement activities; to the concerns of companies that may be subject to industrial policy priorities and restrictions; to the level of the individual who may face institutions with great asymmetries in sensing and sense-making power. This chapter concludes with a forecast of quantum technology scenarios, with forecasts for each quantum technology analyzed in this book, and with a summary of the most important policy issues to pursue.

In chapter 5, I describe how participants in the 1916 debates used the law of nations as it existed at the time, and the dominion and constitutional law of the British Empire to deliberate the justifications for war and for conscription. The languages of these debates included, for example, arguments about the preservation of White Australia, about the need to protect Australians’ civil liberties, and about the unequal claims made on the different classes of Australian society as a result of the First World War. The persuasiveness of uses of international legal language in 1916 depended on speakers’ abilities to navigate the complications of Australia’s colonial nationalism. Speakers made sophisticated arguments about the duties of the Dominion of Australia to the British Empire on the one hand, and to its own emerging nationhood on the other.

This chapter provides an account of the protection of civil liberties and human rights in English law. This includes an account of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its relationship to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. It also explains the interaction between the Human Rights Act 1998 and common law protections of fundamental rights. It then provides an evaluation of the laws on terrorism, freedom of expression and the right to protest.

This chapter explores the 4,000 conscientious objectors (COs) who refused to kill during World War I. It examines the Selective Service Act of 1917 and the religious and secular principles that led men to become COs. By refusing military combat service and resisting the military rules in army camps and military prisons that violated their conscience, COs demonstrated courage, sacrifice, and commitment to principle. Although most COs accepted noncombatant military service or alternative civilian service, 450 absolutists, who refused to cooperate with military authorities and rejected all service under military control, were court-martialed and imprisoned. In camps and prisons, COs defied military rules, regulations, and policies. Their resistance included refusal to obey orders, work strikes, hunger strikes, general strikes, noncooperation, and nonviolent revolts. Furthermore, COs were often severely abused, which led to a wartime civil liberties movement that defended (and which included) COs and that evolved into the postwar American Civil Liberties Union. Finally, this chapter shows how COs contributed to peace and freedom by advancing civil liberties, inspiring future COs, liberalizing World War II conscription legislation, secularizing the peace movement, and pioneering the nonviolent direct action that infused post-1945 peace and justice movements.

To meet the challenge of mobilizing the nation for war in Europe, the Wilson administration took steps to silence dissent on the home front. In addition to a massive propaganda campaign to rouse public enthusiasm for the war, the government used the Espionage Act (1917) to silence anti-war publications and to arrest pacifists, political radicals, and others accused of making disloyal statements. The government’s campaign against dissenters was upheld in landmark decisions by the Supreme Court, supporting the imprisonment of hundreds of anti-war speakers, most notably the socialist leader Eugene V. Debs. While federal government repression encouraged similar laws at the state level as well as a wave of vigilante violence against pacifists and anti-war radicals, the arrests also led some free speech advocates to form the American Civil Liberties Union, one part of a wider campaign that sought amnesty for imprisoned dissenters.

This introductory chapter sketches the main argument of the book and the various areas of interest it touches upon: sovereignty, international law and laws of war, the dilemma security versus freedom, the attempt at humanizing the war conduct, the transformation of notions and practices of citizenship, rights, individual and human in particular, humanitarianism, national belonging, war and society. The introduction focuses in particular on whether there were consolidated customary practices and codified rules to deal with aliens of enemy nationality at the moment of the outbreak of the First World War, and if and how that conflict represented a watershed. It then presents the structure of the book.

This chapter opens the second part of the book and is the first of six entirely devoted to the First World War. It concentrates on the early months of the war and examines first of all the spread of the state of emergency throughout Europe and the British Empire. It then, while calculating the number of enemy aliens in the belligerent countries, describes the first measures against enemy aliens adopted by Britain, France, the Russian Empire and Japan on the one hand, and those taken by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire on the other. It also spells out the diplomatic attempts at protecting enemy aliens, the reactions of the victims of the earliest provisions and the attitudes of the nationalistic public opinion, the spy fever, the spread of fake news and the popular responses to them. By the end of December 1914, each of the early participants in the war had set in motion the mechanism for dealing with enemy aliens. By the same date, the war against them had also become global, ranging from Europe to North America, from Oceania to India or Iran.