Humpty Dumpty Rules or the Rule of Law: Legal Theory and the Adjudication of National Security DAVID DYZENHAUS* I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. "When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things. ""The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master-that's all. .. After all this long discussion the question is whether the words 'If a man has'can mean 'If a man thinks he has. 'I am of the opinion that they cannot and that the case should be decided accordingly Lord Atkin, dissenting, Liversidge r Anderson, 1942 AC 207 at 245 Introduction Anti-terrorism legislation is in vogue after the terrible attacks on the United States of America in September 2001. It is not immediately clear why this should be so, even if there were a credible case to be made that the countries rushing to be fashionable are under real and novel threat. Their criminal law already makes any terrorist act a crime(with the exception perhaps of international money laundering) and a much more plausible reaction would be to devote more resources, on the international level, to understanding and dealing1 Humpty Dumpty Rules or the Rule of Law: Legal Theory and the Adjudication of National Security DAVID DYZENHAUS* I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. ‘“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.” …’ After all this long discussion the question is whether the words ‘If a man has’ can mean ‘If a man thinks he has.’ I am of the opinion that they cannot, and that the case should be decided accordingly. Lord Atkin, dissenting, Liversidge v Anderson, [1942] AC 207 at 245 Introduction Anti-terrorism legislation is in vogue after the terrible attacks on the United States of America in September 2001. It is not immediately clear why this should be so, even if there were a credible case to be made that the countries rushing to be fashionable are under real and novel threat. Their criminal law already makes any terrorist act a crime (with the exception perhaps of international money laundering) and a much more plausible reaction would be to devote more resources, on the international level, to understanding and dealing