From Orlando to Brussels to Baghdad to Jakarta, few regions of the world have been spared the violence generated by those who see value, meaning and opportunity in joining and supporting groups like ISIS. There is growing international resolve to develop joint and sustainable ways to address the transnational threat of violent extremism. Notably, human rights are increasingly seen as critical and pragmatic components—as part of the solution, not an objective that must either be accommodated or a separate line of effort.

destroyed hospital
Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/Victor J. Blue

Counterterrorism strategy traditionally has been the purview of national governments who have laid claim to both defining what constitutes a security threat and determining how best to mitigate it. As the nature and scope of this current wave of political violence has evolved and spread beyond borders, however, the international community is increasingly leveraging its influence and collective voice against this threat. In January, for example, the United Nations released its Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism to call for concerted action.

“Countries where terror attacks are concentrated are highly correlated with those where the state commits gross human rights abuses.”

The discourse on responses to terrorism and violent extremism, especially in the past decade, has often revolved around the need to “balance” rights and security. Often in times of crisis and of real or perceived threat, the axis tips towards security and away from human rights and the rule of law. The transnational nature of modern violent groups, combined with the involvement of international organizations and a growing understanding of the need for prevention, has led to a clear shift in the conversation.

At a June 2016 OSCE counterterrorism conference in Berlin, a senior official described human rights and security as “two sides of the same coin.”  As the discussion about counterterrorism becomes more international, we are moving beyond treatment of human rights as obligations that must be balanced against a security imperative to a realization that rights and security are mutually reinforcing and complementary objectives, and that the promotion of the rule of law is a pathway to preventing violent extremism.

While such points have been made in the past from an ethical perspective, there is also a functional argument to consider. Analysts of political violence have long understood that terrorist groups often deliberately seek to provoke overreaction by states with the expectation that repressive responses will add to the justification for their violence and help galvanize recruitment. Heavy-handed tactics, extra-legal and “special” measures may temporarily reassure a scared public, but often they fuel the grievances that motivate the violence and advance the agenda of extremists.

Countries where terror attacks are concentrated are highly correlated with those where the state commits gross human rights abuses, according to research underpinning the annual Global Terrorism Index. Human rights abuses drive violent extremism, making a measured and proportionate law enforcement and security response essential to breaking the cycle.

Prevention and Tactics

There is another dimension to this discussion about rights and security—how preventive and countering strategies are put into effect. Efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism are often viewed in practice and in policy on two levels: first, as preventative measures to address the conditions that enable violent extremism to flourish, such as abuses by security forces or lack of inclusive and responsive governance; and second, on a more tactical level as measures to identify and divert individuals at risk of joining or being recruited into violent groups.

At the latter, more tactical level of countering violent extremism (CVE), interventions require government and civil society to have the ability to anticipate and divert individuals who may pose a threat before they have committed any crimes. This sensitive area of work requires an accountable and trust-based partnership between police and communities, and a strong rule-of-law culture. This includes parameters to ensure that specific groups are not targeted and that freedom of expression and association aren’t restricted in the process. A legal framework also should clearly define what constitutes a terrorist crime.

Further, how police and governments collect the information they need to keep communities safe and how they engage with civil society organizations in this effort must be fully accountable. Otherwise they run the risk of stigmatizing communities, coercing informants and alienating those who are best placed to help prevent radicalization.
The international community must work towards some consensus on when and where preventative investment is needed, and when and where state and security services have the necessary level of reform and accountability needed to carry out CVE interventions. Supporting the reform of security services in emergent democracies that face substantial transnational security threats is a priority.

USIP has focused much of its CVE initiatives and resources on this challenge. Currently, the institute is working with border security officials in the Western Maghreb who are facing increasing challenges from terrorist groups to ensure their efforts are coordinated and rooted in the rule of law. We have supported the development of safe and productive forums for exchange between women civil society leaders and local police in Nigeria, and have examined closely the risks and opportunities this engagement presents.  

The promotion of rule of law and human rights in the context of security strategies to address violent extremism can create a virtuous circle in which security services improve their accountability, effectiveness and legitimacy while decreasing the kinds of actions that fuel grievances and enable violent extremism to flourish. In today’s world, an investment in a human rights approach to the problem of violent extremism seems the only logical and responsible way forward.  

Georgia Holmer is director of countering violent extremism at USIP.

Related Publications

A Sustainable Approach for Disengaging Violent Extremists

A Sustainable Approach for Disengaging Violent Extremists

Thursday, February 20, 2020

By: Chris Bosley

Governments and communities worldwide are facing the increasingly daunting challenge of what to do when citizens who participated in violent extremist conflicts return home. With ISIS’s territorial caliphate extinguished, more than 100 countries could face the task of not only having to reintegrate their citizens, but also preparing their communities for a future with them living next door. This is a society-wide challenge that will engage a cross-cutting spectrum of stakeholders deploying a range of peacebuilding and other tools to build communities and individuals who are more resilient to violent extremism.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Reconciliation; Violent Extremism

The Role of Aid and Development in the Fight Against Extremism

The Role of Aid and Development in the Fight Against Extremism

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

By: Leanne Erdberg Steadman

Extremist groups thrive in fragile states where basic needs go unmet. Development efforts can address the conditions that make people vulnerable to extremism. If you look at a map of where terrorist groups operate and where terrorist attacks occur, you will find that many coincide with locations of intractable conflict and deep development deficits. Low human development indicators, stark disparities in opportunity and access to resources, poor or scattered governance, and a history of conflict and social marginalization feature prominently among afflicted communities.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Violent Extremism; Fragility & Resilience

Afghan Women’s Views on Violent Extremism and Aspirations to a Peacemaking Role

Afghan Women’s Views on Violent Extremism and Aspirations to a Peacemaking Role

Monday, February 3, 2020

By: Haseeb Humayoon; Mustafa Basij-Rasikh

Recent efforts at settling the decades-long conflict in Afghanistan have featured an increasingly vibrant and visible display of women’s activism. Even with the support of the government and its international partners, Afghan women still face tremendous challenges to realizing their aspirations for a role in peacemaking. Based on extensive interviews throughout Afghanistan, this report attempts to better understand the changing public role of Afghan women today and their contributions to peacebuilding and ending violence.

Type: Peaceworks

Violent Extremism

Understanding Pakistan’s Deradicalization Programming

Understanding Pakistan’s Deradicalization Programming

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

By: Arsla Jawaid

Pakistan has struggled with Islamic militancy since the rise of the mujahideen in the 1980s. In the late 2000s, the Pakistan Army began establishing rehabilitation centers in the Swat Valley in an effort to deradicalize former Taliban fighters and other militants and reintegrate them into their communities. This report contrasts Pakistan’s deradicalization approach with the community-based program used in Denmark and the widely different prison-based program used in Saudi Arabia, and identifies areas in which the army’s approach could benefit from more extensive partnering with civilian-based organizations.

Type: Special Report

Violent Extremism

View All Publications