By NLM writer
Terrorism is here to stay. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to combat it on a global scale while protecting people’s fundamental rights. In the past, many states have rushed to implement laws and strategies to fight terrorists, with resultant rising tension between ensuring national security and protecting people’s rights and freedoms at the same time.
Initiatives for countering incitement and violent extremism can take many forms. Common to all methods is an emphasis on dialogue, inclusion, and the promotion of understanding. States have, for example, created forums for interreligious and intercultural dialogue, or platforms that bring together governmental and non-governmental actors to advise on CVE (countering violent extremism) strategies.
How is it that many global programmes aimed at countering violent extremism have negative impact on human rights and may even ‘foster radicalisation’ rather than preventing it?
The absence of universally agreed upon definitions of ‘violent extremism have, at times, been problematic, including in terms of ensuring consistency and coherence in related strategies, policies, practices and so forth. There is also no universal consensus regarding what exactly constitutes ‘preventing’ or ‘countering violent extremism’, or what forms these should take. With respect to the former, the previous United Nations Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism concluded that “the lack of semantic and conceptual clarity that surrounds violent extremism remains an obstacle to any in-depth examination of the impact of strategies and policies to counter violent extremism on human rights as well as on their effectiveness in reducing the threat of terrorism.
‘Rule of law’ in a terrorism context
The concept of the ‘rule of law’ is a central one to the United Nations system, including in relation to its counter-terrorism activities. As it has been widely recognised by various United Nations organs, entities and Member States, terrorism threatens both the rule of law and the fundamental freedoms of citizens and entire societies; indeed, the General Assembly reaffirmed in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy that one of its central objectives is often to erode the rule of law together with “human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy…”
Though there is no single definition of the concept of the rule of law, its essence was captured by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his report on ‘The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies’ when he described it as “refer[ing] to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.”
A recent report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights notes that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives, which must be pursued together as part of States’ duty to protect individuals within their jurisdiction. Experiences in countries around the world have demonstrated that protecting human rights and ensuring respect for the rule of law itself contribute to countering terrorism, notably by creating a climate of trust between the State and those under their jurisdiction.
This is illustrated by the indivisible relationship between international human rights law and criminal law (both national and international). From a rule of law perspective, the essence of criminal law is to delineate the parameters of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within a particular societal context. If, for example, the definitions of offences are ambiguous then the main function of criminal law may be undermined, thereby facilitating the possibility of other executive-led actions, which may be contrary to upholding the rule of law.
Stigmatise innocent people
The counterterrorism framework always risks associating “extremist” ideas, a subjective and nebulous concept, with violence, thereby stigmatising and delegitimising innocent people. This shouldn’t be surprising considering that zealous government officials routinely fail to abide by their own oaths to uphold the rule of law.
Programmes to counter violent extremism often fail because they focus on suppressing ideas, rather than reducing violence. This is counterproductive because what it mainly achieves is to stigmatise and alienate targeted communities and sow distrust of law enforcement.
As Martin Scheinin, Professor of International Law and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, since 9/11, the emergence or growing importance of the ‘security constitution’ has resulted in repetitious calls for establishing a new balance between security and human rights. This rhetoric, however, is flawed, as there is no need for a ‘balance’ between the law and something else – law itself is the balance.”
It would appear that preventing violent extremism requires a State to undertake a deeper assessment of the root causes of violent extremism, addressing its key drivers, that is, to adopt a more ‘upstream’ approach.
National plans should be developed to include countering and preventing violent extremism measures, thereby suggesting a distinction between the two concepts. Similarly, it requires a comprehensive approach encompassing not only essential security-based counter-terrorism measures but also systematic preventive steps to address the factors that make individuals join violent extremist groups.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
