Restricting freedom of expression in the interest of national security, territorial integrity and public safety

Abstract

Freedom of expression is the linchpin of democracy and protector of all other human rights. Yet, it is not an absolute right as there exist an exhaustive number of circumstances when a restriction may be imposed on this freedom. Following a brief analysis of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Term Paper seeks to analyse in more detail one of the legitimate aims found in sub-article 2 of the said article, mainly “the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety”, together with the additional requirements which must be met for a restriction to be considered as lawful by the Strasbourg entities. Following 9/11, the ground of national security has been invoked more and more with many being concerned that this legitimate aim is being abused by Governments. Consequentially, the Term Paper delves into three sets of principles which have been drafted over the last century in order to provide guidance and understanding to legislators and anyone involved with the sensitive matter of human rights, on which information must be withheld and in which circumstances this may occur. The Term Paper than proceeds to establish a pattern in the decisions of the Court by determining in which cases the ground of national security is mostly invoked, together with an explanation of the difficulties and obstacles which are encountered by freedom of expression in south-east Turkey due to the ongoing violent battle between the Kurds and the Turks. The Term Paper concludes by arguing that a common definition of what constitutes national security, territorial integrity and public safety is greatly required as is a common understanding of which information could pose a threat to a Contracting State if leaked. The two together, have the power to safeguard freedom of expression from possible abuse.