The relationship between security and liberty is an issue that has always attracted scholarly attention. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this issue received a new lease of life in the literature. This is because some liberal states have increasingly adopted security practices that are in conflict with liberal principles. These illiberal practices of liberal states have had implications for non-state referents in the context of the war on terror. This thesis examines the question of what the implications of the illiberal security practices of liberal states are for referents other than states in the context of the war on terror. While examining this question, this thesis adopts a critical perspective by bringing in the perspectives of the Aberystwyth School and the Paris School in a comparative manner. It then, examines this question through a case study on the UK as a liberal state by comparing the perspectives of the Aberystwyth and Paris Schools. In doing so, it offers the argument that seeing liberty and security as separate values that are in conflict with each other results in further insecurity for non-state referents in the context of the war on terror. In this way, this thesis emphasizes the need for going beyond the balance argument of the relationship between liberty and security.