ABSTRACT
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 the political and legal discussions about how the international community should act and react in regard to the threat of terrorism has reached a new climax. This has been characterized more by the actions of the Security Council and reaffirmations of the General Assembly than by new international anti-terrorism treaties. In fact the only new UN treaty introduced since September 11, 2001 has been the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, New York, April 13, 2005.2 The necessity of this treaty is not disputed, but it is questionable whether this was an adequate first response in preventing new terrorist attacks, particularly given the rather low risk of the use of nuclear weapons.3 Meanwhile, the Security Council acknowledged and reaffirmed in several resolutions that (international4 but also national5) terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security. This threat has to be prevented.6 This chapter will set forth how this duty to prevent terrorist attacks should be seen from a human rights and human security perspective. Although a lot of research has been conducted in relation to human rights and terrorism, most research has focused on the violation of human rights by law enforcement bodies when fighting terrorism. In recent years recognition has grown in the UN that development cooperation work, particularly in the area of national institution building, good governance and poverty reduction, could be of use for preventive peace building as it would attack the root causes of many conflicts.7 However, only a few academics and organizations have, until now, seen the potential of human rights also to prevent terrorism.8 Therefore, it will be demonstrated how the responsibility of states for cooperation regarding international peace and security, in combination with their responsibility to foster human rights, could form the legal basis for a human security approach on the prevention of terrorism. This understanding of prevention constitutes the opposite to the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ (GWOT), which takes the international legal system ad absurdum by applying the laws of armed conflicts and derogating human rights in peace time. Therefore, the strategy of GWOT is not an adequate measure to prevent terrorism. Concerning this matter the legal consequences (and particularly human rights considerations) of the war against terrorism will not be considered in every detail as this has been extensively discussed in the existing literature.9
