New problems, old solutions? Explaining variations in British and Spanish anti-terrorism policy

This article seeks to examine the differing responses of Spain and the United Kingdom to recent terrorist violence. While both experienced an al-Qaeda inspired attack on their soil, the legislative response has been very different, with Spain enacting virtually no legislative changes, whereas the United Kingdom has passed four pieces of new anti-terrorism legislation since 2001. The article argues that to account for this variance, the historical roots and evolution of anti-terrorism legislation in both countries should be considered alongside more narrow institutional factors.

In Spain very stringent permanent law was introduced under Franco, and has since been reformed and rolled back to accommodate the democratic era. This sees terrorism dealt with within the existing legal framework and combined with a lingering scepticism of security services and the legal system suggests that increasing anti-terrorism powers are less politically viable (or legally necessary).

In contrast, the United Kingdom, owing to its penchant for temporary law to deal with terrorism, has produced a situation where Parliament has become habituated to legislating on terrorism matters. These policy paradigms, along with differing attachments to civil liberties, help to understand the different responses by these countries to a seemingly common pressure.