{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014690451206715634, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0062959076600209865, 'mean_word_length': 5.15483870967742, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared

This paper examines a significant legislative challenge in many jurisdictions around the world a decade on from the events of 11 September 2001. Using Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom as case studies, it aims to assess the relative effectiveness of regular and extraordinary review mechanisms at the national level in leading to the improvement of anti-terrorism laws. That such mechanisms often appear to meet with only muted success says something about their institutional weakness and also the tension that inheres in legislatures as simultaneously legal and political institutions. Further, it reflects the authority and legitimacy to which national security law quickly lays claim in a political culture. This makes it resistant to reform, even when aspects of it can be said to be part of the terrorist problem rather than its solution.