Human rights are commonly regarded as the antidote to criminalization and securitization. Yet, since 9/11, at both the national and international levels, human rights law has largely accommodated the security-oriented changes deemed necessary to combat terrorism, including the use of torture and the erection of a “shadow” system of justice through the use of coercive non-trial-based measures (Gearty 2017 ; Hamilton 2018 ). In this article, we examine taken-for-granted features of modern legal adjudication and “human rights proofing” (forms of human rights protection) that dilute the restraining power of human rights law and extend security measures. Informed by a “governmental criminological” analysis of human rights in the security field, we present two case studies to illustrate these arguments. The first considers “human rights proofing” mechanisms in the United Nations counter-terrorism assemblage which, we argue, have been rendered “technical” (Sokhi-Bulley 2016 ) through the complexity of the structures deployed to protect rights and the forms of knowledge privileged by experts. The second case study draws on use of control orders—Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) in the United Kingdom—and examines two governmental “techniques,” namely, the judicial “balancing test” and the European Convention on Human Rights “memos” put to parliamentary committees scrutinizing counter-terrorist legislation. At both national and international levels, how human rights are being institutionalized has affected the operation of power: we are being governed through rights (Golder 2011 ) in ways consistent with conditions of authoritarian liberalism (Dean 2007 ).

中文翻译：

---

反恐中的人权治理：证明、问题化和安全化

人权通常被视为犯罪化和证券化的解毒剂。然而，自 9/11 以来，在国家和国际层面，人权法在很大程度上适应了被认为是打击恐怖主义所必需的以安全为导向的变革，包括使用酷刑和建立“影子”司法系统。使用非基于审判的强制性措施（Gearty 2017 ; Hamilton 2018）。在本文中，我们考察了现代法律审判和“人权证明”（人权保护的形式）的理所当然的特征，这些特征削弱了人权法的约束力并扩展了安全措施。通过对安全领域人权的“政府犯罪学”分析，我们提出了两个案例研究来说明这些论点。第一个考虑联合国反恐组合中的“人权证明”机制，我们认为，由于用于保护权利的结构的复杂性和享有特权的知识形式，这些机制已被赋予“技术性”（Sokhi-Bulley 2016）。由专家。第二个案例研究利用控制令的使用——英国的恐怖主义预防和调查措施 (TPIM)——并检查了两种政府“技术”，即司法“平衡测试”和欧洲人权公约“备忘录”提交议会委员会审查反恐立法。在国家和国际层面，人权制度化的方式影响了权力的运作：