ABSTRACT
In this respect, perhaps one of the most problematic aspects of transnational counter-terrorism law is its role in setting a global agenda.85 The Security Council has principal responsibility for international peace and security. If groups like Islamic State pose a threat to international peace and security, as that group certainly does in the Middle East, then it is appropriate for the Security Council to act. However, the choice by the Security Council to focus on counterterrorism, and to use Chapter VII resolutions to mandate action by states, sets a legislative agenda not just in international law but also in national legal systems across the globe. Thus, even in states where other legislative priorities may be more pressing, it is terrorism that those in government must address.86 The hegemonic effect of transnational law, as a result of its juridical and disciplinary power, can be to dictate national legislative and executive priorities to states for whom other concerns – public health, economic deprivation, climate change – may be more urgent. This may be the most significant problem of legitimacy: not the form or substance of transnational counter-terrorism law, but rather the fact that finite resources are spent on this problem rather than others.
