ABSTRACT
It therefore seems counterproductive to place security in opposition to human rights. Yet, in practice, it appears that lawmakers, practitioners and judges are constantly faced with having to choose between, or balance, these two needs. The balance between the two values is not inherently problematic because both values need to be present at all times and balancing these two values allows – in theory – both values to coexist. Yet, in practice, it is the language of ‘conflict’ that seems prevalent in most counterterrorism theories, fostering an emergency environment without the necessary safeguards. Focusing on the term ‘conflict’ too often leads to a choice between security and human rights, instead of a healthy combination. This article will therefore examine terrorist sanctions regimes such as the UN and the European Union (EU) in order to determine whether it is possible to move the focus beyond the conflict between security and human rights. I will focus here on the idea that a conflict does occur, but at a different level, that of institutions, and assert whether that conflict can be useful in order to enhance the fairness of sanctions regimes.
2. The international legal order: a new dimension to the conflict?
