Balancing National Security With Human Rights
- IJLLR Journal
- May 17
- 1 min read
Siddharth Abhishek, National Law University Odisha
Gracy Tanwar, National Law University Odisha
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that in the rush to respond to the 9/11 attacks, countries around the world created a new security playbook that has consistently valued a vague idea of 'national security' over the clear, written rules of international human rights. By looking at the laws passed in the United States, the UK, and India, I'll show a disturbing pattern. Governments have given themselves sweeping new powers – to spy on citizens, to water down due process – all by using fuzzy, convenient definitions of terrorism. And the long-term damage? It's been immense. It's not just about individual rights; it's about the erosion of the rule of law itself, the weakening of democratic oversight, and the fraying of our social fabric, especially for minority communities who are so often the first to be targeted. In the end, I argue that this security-first approach is not just wrong; it's a failure on its own terms. It's often counter-productive. Let's be clear: we don't find real, lasting security by sacrificing our rights. We find it by making a huge shift— getting smarter, preventing threats before they start, and building trust within communities, all without breaking the law. That’s not a soft stance. It’s the only one with a real shot at making us safe.
