Mama Amon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,054
- 2,600
Mr. Suleiman Abubakar Mombo, the Director General of Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service (TISS)
1. Abstract
"It is one of the undisputed functions of government to take precautions against crime before it has been committed, as well as to detect and punish it afterwards. The preventive function of government, however, is far more liable to be abused, to the prejudice of liberty, than the punitive function; for there is hardly any part of the legitimate freedom of action of a human being that would not admit of being represented, and fairly too, as inscreasing the facilities for some form or other of delinquency."--By John Stuart Mill (1859), On Liberty (Oxford, England: Oxford University), p. 149.
“The only purpose for which [government's preventive] power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent [clear, present and imminent ] harm to [non-consenting] others [...][where] his own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant, [...][meaning that] he cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”--By John Stuart Mill(1859), On Liberty (Oxford, England: Oxford University), pp. 21–22.
The unprecedented police crackdown on 520 Mainland Tanzanian youth belonging to the opposition camp, between 9 and 12 August 2024, this being a strategy of preventing them to celebrate the International Youth Day, as they wished, allegedly on the ground that the police were neutralizing a clear, present and imminent threat to national security, is a wake up call on statesmen and stateswomen to revisit our justice administration framework generally, and specifically our preventive justice administration framework, as they are found in our constitution, statutes and the related regulations.
Generally speaking, human persons are assumed to have a right to certain things; certain things are due them. Justice, then, consists of rendering to them whatever be their right or due. It consists of fairness or equity in the distribution of benefits and burdens and in our exchanges with each other. It entails equality of treatment, where equals are treated equally and unequals are treated differently, meaning that equality is often proportioned to relevant differences in the recipients.
And specifically, preventive justice administration is a process whereby an authorized agent, calculates risk associated with the behaviors of certain persons, who are judged to be pose a clear, present and imminent threat of harm to the other individual(s) in their social, political, economic, cultural, educational, medical, ecological, contractual, or some other environments, and then neutralizes the threat by taking restrictive measures against them before they have done anything harmful to the other(s), where such restrictions involve depriving them of their liberties, provided that, there are procedural safeguards, principled limits, and provisions for scrutiny, oversight and review that do prevent procedural injustice to the restricted person, and provided that, there is a guarantee of retributive justice where the restricted individuals suffer procedural injustices.
It is against this phenomenon that, one hundred and sixty five years ago, specifically in 1859, that the above quoted Briton, one John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), expressed his worries by stating that, "the preventive function of government," always, "is far more liable to be abused, to the prejudice of liberty, than the punitive function."
As a result of his worry Mill articulated the above quoted "Harm Principle," for regulating such powers. This principle has provided an enduring guide to the exercise and regulation of state power in respect of preventive justice administration to date.
Mill’s harm principle rests on a distinction between self-regarding conduct, which is not liable to interference, and other-regarding conduct, which is. The self-regarding versus other-regarding distinction, when properly interpreted means that intervention is permissible only to prevent non-consensual harm, regardless of where it falls.
But, Mill’s harm principle actually concerns the reasons that may be given for interference, rather than what actions may be interfered with, meaning that, the harm principle does not tell us what actions should or should not be interfered with, but rather gives us a framework for thinking about intervention.
However, subsequent improvements of the harm principle has allowed today's every expert who is trained and qualified in statecraft and national security matters to understand pretty well that, the national dream toward “social justice” within the context of a constitutional republican liberal democracy mandates each and every citizen, including state organs which are responsible for law and order enforcement, to simultaneously do the following, among others:
- Ensuring that, each citizen has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all;
- Seeing to it that, Political, social and economic inequalities in the distribution of the primary goods of income, wealth, powers, office positions and responsibility are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
- Making sure that, social and economic inequalities in the distribution of the primary goods of income, wealth, powers, office positions and responsibility are arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of the society.
- Protecting and promoting the rule of law over impunity;
- Elevating strong institutions over strong individuals,
- Pursuing peace and order and avoiding violence and disorder; and
- Uplifting a pluralistic society over a monistic society, provided that the unity of a compound entity called "society" is always respected.
Whether or not, without sufficient warrant, the Tanzanian law-and-order enforcement organs of the state have squeezed civic space by elevating impunity over the rule of law, uplifting a monistic society over a pluralistic society, and celebrating strong individuals over strong institutions, these being coercive strategies of weakening, and possibly, eliminating multiparty democracy in Tanzania?
In this policy brief, after a careful analysis and reflection, this question will be answered in the affirmative, with evidence provided, after which a call shall be made for a proper balance between “Precautionary Principle,” “Preventive Justice,” "punitive justice," and "the Rule of Law" in the United Republic of Tanzania.
In doing so, the duty to protect the public shall be endorsed as a trump card, while the principle of preventive justice shall be invoked, not to contest this duty, but to contest the careless mindset according to which the duty to protect the public must outplay all other human values, and to insist that, preventive measures taken by security enforcement organs should be subject to carefully framed restraining principles, everywhere, every time and for every subject.
CP Awadhi Juma, the Commissioner of Operations for the Tanzania Police Force
2. Background: What is at stake?
Human history has a property of recurrence. On 21 September 2000, Omary Mahita, the then IGP, when speaking to junior police officers in Dar es Salaam Region at the National Indoor Stadium, called upon the law enforcers to be ready to defend themselves during that period towards the General Election.
Mahita told the junior officers that, "If you allow ants to move onto your legs, they may reach a bad place, where they are not supposed to be, that is, the area around the tecticles." he added, "So, we need to be ready to protect ourselves," said Mahita. Then, he concluded his speech by arguing that, "if CUF pretended to be more stable (ngangari), then the policfe force are supposed to be the most stable (ngunguri)."
This enemity between CUF and the Police F9orce culmnated into Zanzibar Killings of 21 persons on 26-27 January of 2001, under the Presidency of the lateb Benjamin William Mkapa. The "ngunguri-ngangari scandal" between CUF and the Police Force now appears to repeat itself, but this time it is between CHADEMA and the Police Force.
Between 09 and 12 August 2024, many CHADEMA Members were arrested by the Police Force in Tanzania and their whereabouts remained unknown, ahead of the Youth Day Commemoration on 11 August 2024, which was planned to be held in Mbeya Region. The commemoration was severally banned by the Police Force and the Political Parties Registrar.
Specifically, a total of 520 members of the opposition party CHADEMA, were arrested during the police crackdown against the party’s Youth Day celebration event.
They included 375 CHADEMA members, including 261 men and 114 women, who were detained at various locations across the country on August 11, 2024, as they traveled to Mbeya.
The detainees included 28 members arrested in Morogoro, 109 in Iringa, 60 in Njombe, 19 in Dar es Salaam, 41 in the Coast region, 30 in Rukwa, and 51 in Songwe.
Additional 145 people, include 112 men and 33 women, who were arrested on 12 August 2024, including party Chairperson Freeman Mbowe and Youth Wing leader John Pambalu.
The Police Force issued a press release stating that their preventive actions were triggered by the fear that Tanzanian youth would replicate anti-government protests taking place elsewhere in Africa, such as Kenya and Nigeria.
On Sunday, police’s chief in charge of operations and training, Awadh Haji, made it explicitly clear why the law enforcement authority refused to allow the planned youth day commemoration by CHADEMA youth to go as planned, citing statements by some of the party’s officials referring to the Kenyan protests as a reason.
CP Awadhi Juma, the Commissioner of Operations for the Tanzania Police Force
One such statement came from BAVICHA mobilisation officer Twaha Mwaipaya, who mobilized people in Mbeya to show up for the commemoration, saying the youth will convene in the region to decide on the future of their country. Mwaipaya added that they’re serious, just like their Kenyan colleagues.
“They say their colleagues in Kenya did what they did and want to mobilise the same here in Tanzania,” Haji told a press conference. “Now, they should not dare to try it. When we say we will take strict measures, we mean it; anyone who will dare us, we will properly deal with them according to the laws.”
The police commissioner said the law enforcement agency does not believe that CHADEMA youth only sought to mark International Youth Day. He pointed out that the force believes the party’s youth planned to use the day as a cover for actions that would put the country’s safety in jeopardy.
“This is exactly why we say that such commemorations have been prohibited,” Mr Haji added. “And when we say it is prohibited, we mean prohibited in capital letters. We appeal to all law-abiding Tanzanians to ignore calls to participate in such commemoration organised by few people with ulterior motives.”
Omary Mahita, former IGP of Tanzania.
In short, the "ngangari-ngunguri era" aside, Tanzania has witnessed a massive crackdown against members of the country’s opposition parties not seen since President Samia Suluhu Hassan assumed presidential power after the fifth President, the late John Magufuli. For this reason many observers condemned the operations.
ACT secretary general Ado Shaibu said the party would ignore the ban and proceed with the rally. ACT also issued a statement calling for the police to release all detained CHADEMA members and officials.
The ACT deputy national chairperson (Tanzania Mainland) Isihaka Mchinjita described the police’s actions as “an attack on democracy” in a post on X-portal.
Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) also condemned the police’s measures, calling them “unconstitutional and illegal,” demanding “an immediate and unconditional release” of all detainees.
The Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) reminded the police to operate constitutionally and lawfully, calling on the release of all detained opposition members and officials.
The crackdown that dominated debates in many social media platforms occured against the background of authorities’ expressed fear of what is happening in other countries, such as Kenya, where youth-led anti-government protests, popularly referred to as Gen Z protests, have led to the deterioration of political stability.
3. Methodology
Given the above narrative, the following question was addressed while preparing the present policy brief:
Whether or not, without sufficient warrant, the law-and-order enforcement organs have squeezed civic space by elevating impunity over the rule of law, uplifting a monistic society over a pluralistic society, and celebrating strong individuals over strong institutions, these being coercive strategies of weakening, and possibly, eliminating multiparty democracy in Tanzania?
To answer this question fully, the following sub-questions were framed for determination:
- Did the law-and-order enforcement organs respect the principles of republicanism?
- Did the law-and-order enforcement organs respect the principles of rule of law?
- Did the law-and-order enforcement organs properly interpret and apply the principle of “preventive justice”?
- Did the law-and-order enforcement organs properly interpret and implement the precautionary principle?
- Did the law-and-order enforcement organs carefully think about using the principles of punitive justice to isolate some individuals who are alleged to have committed acts which amount the instigation public disorder?
- What are the dangers of the coercive punitive powers of the state?
What are the dangers of the coercive preventive powers of the state? - What are the constitutional and/or policy limits of coercive preventive powers of the state?
- What are the constitutional and/or policy limits of coercive punitive powers of the state?
- If the answers to the above questions are negative, what steps should be taken against the law-and-order enforcement organs to make sure that the principle of retributive justice is activated in favor of the victims of the crackdown and multiparty democracy?
CP Awadhi Juma, the Commissioner of Operations for the Tanzania Police Force
4. Findings
The above framed questions cannot be answered in isolation. They need to be addressed together so as to come up with a balanced synthesis. In that spirit, I came up with the following findings:
Concerning the principle of Republicanism
Republicanism presents a substantive version of popular government. It is a constitutive principle requiring that both citizens and political figures act in the public interest as opposed to, say, the mere satisfaction of wants or vindication of interests. It is a form of government where people vote for representatives. These elected representatives are responsible to the citizens and they must govern according to law. The Constitution wants people to have a voice in the government, but does not want public opinion to interfere with good government.
Concerning the principles of rule of law
The basic content of the rule of law is that legislation must be capable of being interpreted in such a way that it can be enforced in accordance with the requirements of due process, where, the officials who implement it can comply with a duty to act fairly, reasonably and in a fashion that respects the equality of all those who are subject to the law and independent judges are entitled to review the decisions of these officials to check that they do so comply.
Thus, on one hand, the rule of law is a rule under which the law applies equally and everyone is subject to it. It provides an orderly method for a society to change and evolve through addressing issues such as inequality and prejudice.
The rule of law ensures citizens are governed equally and fairly by the law and not by anyone or anything else. This means that even law-makers must obey fundamental laws, even while making other laws.
Essentially, the rule of law also requires the equal application of laws. Simply put, this means that no one is above the law, and any law that is broken should be equally punishable across the board, regardless of status in society or the local community.
And on the other hand, rule by law is the opposite of the rule of law. It is a rule under which those in power can arbitrarily create and apply law as they choose, with no accountability. It permits the arbitrary creation and application of the law and excludes the ability to challenge its validity or its application.
This is a concept that sees the governing authority as somehow being above the law, and has the power to create and execute law where they find it to be convenient, despite the effect it has on larger freedoms that people enjoy.
In a society where rule by law applies, those in power choose which laws to apply, or not apply, against which citizens. While each society has a system of laws, the application of the law in a society where rule by law exists is arbitrary.
Preventive measures, notably in the counter-terrorism context, are often examples of attempts to “rule by law” without “the rule of law.”
Individuals facing significant infringements to their liberty are deprived of basic rights of due process: say, the right to know the case against them, the opportunity to properly contest this case before an independent tribunal.
To the extent these measures fail to comply with the rule of law, they lose their claim to legal legitimacy that comes with the status of law.
Concerning the principle of retributive justice/punitive justice
Retributive justice is a response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the punishment of lawbreakers and the compensation of victims.
While the concept has been used in a variety of ways, retributive justice is best understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles:
- Those who commit crimes–especially serious crimes—morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment.
- The punishment should be determined and applied by officials of a legitimate criminal justice system.
- It is morally impermissible to intentionally punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately harsh punishments on wrongdoers.
Concerning the principles of preventive justice
In addition to their ex-post punitive responses to crime, modern states rely on a variety of ex-ante preventive strategies.
This policy brief is concerned with the preventive justice doctrine in relation to a threat known as breach of peace. It seeks to examine critically the test for determining the point at which the government to intervene to prevent a breach of a peace may be exercised lawfully.
Generally, a preventive action aims to correct a potential problem. Unlike a corrective action, which fixes the root cause of a current issue, preventive actions try to address problems before they happen.
Hence, preventive justice is a process whereby an agent, such as a police officer, calculates risk associated with the behaviors of certain persons, who are judged to be potentially harmful to the public, and then takes restrictive measures against them before they have done anything harmful to the others, where such restrictions involve depriving them of their liberties, provided that, there are procedural safeguards, principled limits, and provisions for scrutiny, oversight and review that do prevent procedural injustice to the restricted person, and guarantee retributive justice where such an injustice occurs.
Simply stated, the principle of preventive justice can be framed as follows: In a constitutional republican liberal democracy, no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he/she chooses provided his/her acts are not invasive of the free acts of others.
Alternatively framed: Over oneself, over one's own body and mind, the individual is absolutely sovereign, such that, the only purpose for which external preventive power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent imminent morally wrongful harm to other individuals or groups by limiting some liberties of such a member of society.
In other words, the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection against imminent morally wrongful harm.
The idea is that the nature of harm is comparative, meaning that morally harmful events make individuals worse off than they were prior to the event. In other words: An event E harms a subject S if, and only if, E makes s worse off in terms of welfare after E than S was prior to E.
Paraphrased, we have: Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else, without the other's consent, even though all other spectators may find the referred conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.
So, if state intervention against an individual is justified, then this is at least partly because it prevents morally wrongful harm to non-consenting others, meaning that, the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to non-consenting others.
In effect, preventive justice is just one dimension of social justice, other dimensions being commutative justice, contributive justice, distributive justice, and retributive justice/punitive justice. These dimensions of social justice are inseparably connected in a republican constitutional democracy.
Accordingly, the axiom, “prevention is better than cure,” is a common denominator of many regulatory settings such as medicine, keeping peace and public order, terrorism management, environmental protection, mental health, immigration, corruption and national security management.
For example, in law, preventive justice refers to legal measures devoted to preventing future crime by intervening where there exists a probable suspicion, that some crime is intended or likely to happen, where, these measures restrain an individual's liberty on the basis of an estimation of future harm, rather than past acts, even if past acts form part of the prediction of future harm.
In contracts management preventive justice administration is any activity of a government actor that, by assisting individuals in structuring their legal relationships, helps avoid future conflict and increase legal certainty. It is considered a “second pillar” of the legal system.
While the traditional function of courts is to adjudicate disputes that have arisen between parties (ex post), preventive justice administration increases legal certainty by way of verifying the identity of parties to a transaction, as well as other facts, and providing an independent and oftentimes binding assessment of the legal consequences of a transaction at the time of its execution (ex ante).
There are various kinds of government actors that might be involved in the preventive justice administration. For example, civil law notaries, whose most important task it is to assist individuals and other private entities in the preparation and execution of transactions and other legal acts, play an important role in the preventive administration of justice. Civil law notaries are bound not to notarize any agreement that is in violation of substantive rules.
For these reasons, lawyers observe that, “preventive justice is better than punitive justice,” meaning that, “preventive justice is preferable in all respects to punitive justice.”
And national security management relies on a kind of “precautionary logic” by which extreme measures are taken in an effort to avoid future, but uncertain, security threats.
For example, counter-terrorism strategies that include anticipatory or pre-emptive military strikes, civil control orders, and indefinite detention all aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks have been characterized as part of a precautionary approach to counter-terrorism.
The problem of preventive justice is obvious. We know how punitive justice which deals with past human actions is regulated based on collecting and analysing historical evidence. But, unlike punitive justice, preventive justice deals with possible future human actions and events, whose occurrence is often uncertain. If so, how is preventive justice regulated?
Thus, although prevention may be desirable as a matter of policy, questions must inevitably be raised and answered as to its limits and legitimacy, specifically, how society should reconcile the desirability of averting risks of future harm with respect for the rule of law, procedural fairness and respect for human rights.
Specifically, it is worthy noting that, preventive justice measures risk creating a template for the expansion of preventive incursions on liberty more generally and for the creation of an alternative system of justice that is devoid of, or contains an attenuated version of, the normal civil liberty protections, and hence the name preventive injustice.
Concerning the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle holds that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to peace, public order or environmental integrity, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing effective and efficient measures to prevent the potential harm. The principle requires a threat of serious or irreversible harm for it to apply.
In other words, the precautionary principle holds that, if an action or policy might cause severe and irreversible harm to the public or the environment, the proponents of the action should bear the burden of proof of no harm, in the absence of a scientific consensus that the harm will not occur.
The principle regulates the reasons for a decision and the process by which a decision is made. This is the case because regulating outcomes, beyond requiring decision makers to pursue broad statutory goals, is logically impossible in cases of scientific uncertainty.
In other words, the rationale for the precautionary principle does not lie in its substantive legitimacy.
The very conditions of uncertainty that require the precautionary principle preclude us from evaluating the principle solely on its ability to generate effective outcomes.
It would be difficult, if not impossible to know when an unforeseen catastrophe has been avoided. Instead, defenders of the principle look to its potential to instantiate procedures through which a community can collectively decide how to proceed in the face of uncertainty.
The benefit of the precautionary approach is that it licenses government officials to take preventive measures, particularly in cases where the potential harm is life-threatening or gravely damaging to public order, human safety or health.
However, the precautionary principle has several problems. The first is that the precautionary principle may license arbitrary and unfounded decision-making with serious adverse consequences for individual liberty rights which are constitutionally protected.
The said constitutionally protected liberty rights include freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement in one's country.
In fact, most of the preventive justice techniques pose a number of challenges to a wide range of fundamental rights, including the principle of legality in criminal law, effective judicial protection, privacy, data protection and freedom of expression.
The emergency nature of the 9/11 responses in America and beyond appears to have been normalised in the evolution of preventive security policy, with initiatives blurring the boundaries of legality, challenging fundamental legal and constitutional assumptions and thus leading to preventive injustice.
Thus, the implications of widespread adherence to an analogous principle in the preventive detention context are sobering: we should expect to see large numbers of low-level terrorist suspects detained, coupled with surveillance and/or detention of large numbers of people who are simply members of ethnic or religious groups or organizations from whom terrorists are commonly recruited.
And the second problem is that, the precautionary principle is operationalised by reversing the standard principles governing the burden of proof.
In an administrative context various ‘burdens’ arise with respect to providing specific information and conducting analyses.
Where the first party claims that a given proposal, as made by the second party, is possibly harmful made the second party, the standard principle of proof says that the first party who asserts a claim of harm existence should bear the burden of proving its existence.
For example, if the police claim that a given proposal by a citizen threatens to breach peace and public order it should be their duty to prove the truth value of this claim and not vice versa.
But the precautionary principle reverses this common practice. Hence it is a bad principle in so far of the common principles of rational argumentation and mutual engagement are concerned.
Concerning the principles of multiparty democracy
Unlike a one-party system, a multi-party system encourages the citizens to form multiple distinct, officially recognized groups, generally called political parties. Each party competes for votes from the enfranchised constituents, those allowed to vote.
It works like an umbrella that mitigates the harms of heavy rainfall or hot sun rays to a pedestrian. In this case we have a multiparty political umbrella, in which case each political party is represented by one umbrella spoke.
For the entire political umbrella of multiparty democracy to function well, as intended, all political spokes must be strong and working properly, and the opposite is the case. Any attempt by security enforcement organs to undermine the proper functioning of this political umbrella of multiparty democracy is unwarranted.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In this policy brief, the duty to protect the public has been endorsed as a trump card. And the principle of preventive justice has been invoked not to contest this duty. But the principle of preventive justice has been invoked to contest the careless claim that the duty to protect the public must outplay all other human values, and to insist that, preventive measures often taken by our security enforcement organs should be subject to carefully framed restraining principles, everywhere, every time and for every subject, consistent with the principles of a constitutional republican democracy.
And based on the above findings, it is my considered view that, our law-and-order enforcement agencies crossed the line which demarcates the rule of law from anarchic impunity. It was wrong for them to attribute utterances by an individual to a collective entity.
In short what they have done is to undermine the proper functioning of the political umbrella of multiparty democracy in Tanzania, without sufficient warrant.
In effect, as we move forward, I wish to call for rules of peace and order management which will reflect a Proper Balance Between the principles of “Precautionary Principle,” “Preventive Justice” mechanisms and “the Rule of Law” within a Constitutional Republican Democracy, such as the United Republic of Tanzania.
We need to make sure that there is a clear formulation of rules so that every one can see the difference between preventive justice and preventive injustice, so that whenever preventive injustice occurs the retributive justice principle comes in automatically.
In other words, I suggest that, We need a clearly formulated conceptual framework around which a punitive state can discharge her duties without going beyond the limits of a punitive state, just as we need a clearly formulated conceptual framework around which a preventive state can discharge her duties without going beyond the limits of a preventive state. I suggest that, such a framework is now missing, and one must be formulated quickly by our statesmen and stateswomen.
One of the principles I have in mind is the principle of retributive justice which should be invoked by the victims of the crackdown by security organs whenever such crackdown are without sufficient warrant in the eyes of the constitution, the statutes, and the related regulations. For this reason the code of conduct governing the works of the secret service staff must be accessible for public scrutiny.
6. References
- Anna Folland(2022), "The Harm Principle and the Nature of Harm," Utilitas (2022), 34, 139–153.
- Ben Saunders(2012), "Reformulating Mill’s Harm Principle," Paper presented in 2012 at the University of Edinburgh, and in the Joint Sessions conference at the University of Stirling.
- Cole, D. (2014), The difference prevention makes: Regulating preventive justice. Crime, Law and Philosophy 9(3): 501–519.
- Judith Jones and Simon Bronitt, ‘The burden and standard of proof in environmental regulation: the precautionary principle in an Australian administrative context’ in Elizabeth Fisher, Judith Jones (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Edward Elgar Pub, 2006).
- Elizabeth Fisher & Ronnie Harding, "The Precautionary Principle and Administrative Constitutionalism: The Development of Frameworks for Applying the Precautionary Principle" in Elizabeth Fisher, Judith Jones, René von Schomberg (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Edward Elgar Pub, 2006).
- Carol S. Steiker (1998), The Limits of the Preventive State, 88 J. Crim. L.& Criminology 771.
- John Rawls (1999), A Theory of Justice, Revised edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
- John Stuart Mill (1979/1859), On Liberty (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin).
- Tulich, T. (2017), Critical reflections on preventive justice. In: Tulich T, Ananian-Welsh R, Bronitt S, Murray S (eds) Regulating Preventive Justice: Principle, Policy and Paradox. London: Routledge, pp. 3–22.
- Tulich, T. et al. (2017), Regulating Preventive Justice: Principle, Policy and Paradox (London: Routledge).
