THE IMPLICATIONS OF A POST- 9/11 WORLD: HOW GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO TERRORISM SHAPE HUMAN RIGHTS AND TRUST

Abstract

The aftermath of 9/11 ushered in the global War on Terror and a new pattern of rhetoric in which terrorism is used as a justification by states to enact repressive pieces of legislation which violate human rights. Terrorism has become an end all phrase which is used by the state to legitimize the abuse of human rights. In many cases, the public overlooks such abuses of human rights because they are believed to have been done with the intention of securing the welfare and safety of the populace. I have sought to study whether terrorist actions are more likely to justify human rights violations in the eyes of the public, through measuring levels of public trust in the government. An in-country analysis was conducted in the Philippines with the intention of measuring public attitudes of trust toward the government. It was found that a general rally around the flag effect occurred in the aftermath of a terrorist attack which led the public to trust the governing apparatus and to favorably view the counterterrorism measures they were likely to implement in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. In all, the public is more likely to trust the governing apparatus, even if they violate constitutionally protected rights, if they are under the justification of terrorism.