Abstract

Deportation or the otherwise removal of terrorist suspects from home soil raises contentious International Law and Human Rights arguments, yet governments the world over are increasingly using assurances, or promises that individuals will not be mistreated, in order to ensure that terrorists are removed with a veneer of constitutionalism. Through an analysis of the Anglo-American practices in terrorist removals, including the most recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, this article argues that the criticisms that surround the use of assurances are wholly surmountable, and contends that an effective deportation with assurance regime should be implemented in States’ domestic law, based on tripartite foundations of judicial oversight, a doctrine of ‘compliance’, and the implementation of a mandatory ‘independent monitoring’ mechanism. It is suggested that such a regime will further enhance international cooperation that may lead to strengthening, rather than weakening, of multilateral human rights agreements.