Acts of Terrorism and Human Rights: A Conflict Study By - Rekha Kumari

Acts of Terrorism and Human Rights: A Conflict Study

Authored By - Rekha Kumari

ABSTRACT

There are two key areas where the concepts of human rights and terrorism may come into conflict: the first, most obviously, concerns an act of terrorism itself; the second concerns measures that may be taken by official organs in the process of trying to counter terrorism.”

Irrespective of the way that terrorism is defined and irrespective of the reasons behind it or the motivation for engaging in it, the act of terrorising members of the population constitutes a violation of their dignity and right to personal security, in the best case, and a violation of the right to life, in the worst. In terms of human rights law, the matter is less simple since human rights law has mostly been drawn up to protect individuals from infringements on their rights and liberty from the side of governments.

A number of human rights issues arise in connection with the fight against terrorism and there is almost bound to be a continuing tension between the measures a government regards as necessary to take in order to protect the populace and the rights it may need to limit in order to do so.

Keywords: Human Rights, War Crime, Terrorism, Public Safety, International Law, Victim

Introduction

'Terrorism strikes at the very heart of everything the United Nations stands for. It is a global threat to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and stability, and therefore requires a global response.’

                                                  (Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 17 June 2004, SG/ SM/9372).

Acts of war or terrorism challenge the human rights framework almost to the point where it seems to collapse. It is hard to see any place for human rights when human life is deliberately targeted, or where it is seen as "collateral damage" in the course of mass bombing campaigns, which either directly or indirectly lead to sickness, disease, suffering, destruction of homes, and death. In times of war, particularly wars which last for years on end, every human right appears to be affected adversely.[1] Despite a plethora of instruments addressing terrorism, it has been difficult to reach an international consensus on a definition of terrorism. A clear definition is necessary as without it oppressive governments violate human rights with reference to security; opponents of government policies may be categorised as terrorists in the same way as, for example, some states in the 1970s labelled perceived ‘dissidents’ as communists.[2] The term "war on terror" was first used by 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush  on 16 September 200. It is used as a war on metaphor to describe a variety of actions which fall outside the traditional definition of war and it is taken to eliminate international terrorism.[3]

The notion behind the concept of "War on Terror" was contentious, with critics charging that it has been used to reduce civil liberties and infringe upon human rights.[4]

 A criticism between the human rights and war on terror has focused on the aspects of morality, efficiency, and cost. In  2021, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs has conducted a study whereby  the several post-9/11 wars participated in by the United States in its war against terror have caused the displacement, conservatively calculated of 38 million people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Philippines and Pakistan; 26.7 million people have returned home following displacement.[5]

Human Rights and Terrorism

There are two key areas where the concepts of human rights and terrorism may come into conflict: the first, most obviously, concerns an act of terrorism itself; the second concerns measures that may be taken by official organs in the process of trying to counter terrorism.”

Irrespective of the way that terrorism is defined and irrespective of the reasons behind it or the motivation for engaging in it, the act of terrorising members of the population constitutes a violation of their dignity and right to personal security, in the best case, and a violation of the right to life, in the worst. In terms of human rights law, the matter is less simple since human rights law has mostly been drawn up to protect individuals from infringements on their rights and liberty from the side of governments. There is no possibility, for example, to take a terrorist group to the European Court of Human Rights!”

However, governments do possess certain obligations: firstly, in terms of protecting citizens from attacks on their personal security; secondly, in terms of compensating victims who may have suffered from terrorist attacks; and thirdly, of course, in terms of not engaging in terrorism themselves.”

A number of human rights issues arise in connection with the fight against terrorism and there is almost bound to be a continuing tension between the measures a government regards as necessary to take in order to protect the populace and the rights it may need to limit in order to do so.”

The Laws of War

Even in times of war, there are certain laws which impose limits on the actions of the warring parties, for example, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, targeting civilian populations and medical care for the wounded. The laws of warfare are mostly governed by international humanitarian law, otherwise known as the Geneva Conventions.”

The Geneva Conventions continued to be developed up to 1949, when the fourth Geneva Convention was adopted and the previous three were revised and expanded. Later, three amendment protocols were added. These Conventions have been ratified in whole or in part by 194 countries.”

In addition to the Geneva Conventions, there are other standards in international humanitarian law, including the Hague Conventions and a range of international treaties on the weapons that can and cannot be used in warfare. Throughout the 1990s, a coalition of NGOs successfully lobbied for an international ban on the production and use of landmines. The Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was adopted in 1997 and has since been ratified by 157 states worldwide. The Coalition continues to campaign for a treaty which bans the use of cluster bombs, which, just like landmines, leave a trail of destruction even once a war has ended.”

War Crimes

The most serious violations of international humanitarian law are considered to be war crimes. War crimes are such serious offences that they are held to be criminal acts for which individuals can be held accountable.[6]”

Based on the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), war crimes (in the Convention: grave breaches) include:”

“Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial [...], taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”[7]

Other acts for which individuals can be held responsible include crimes against humanity, mass murder and genocide. Crimes against humanity are severe crimes committed against a civilian population, such as murder, rape, torture, enslavement and deportation.”

The first trials of individuals for such crimes were the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of Nazi and Japanese political and military leaders in the aftermath of the Second World War. Since then, a number of ad hoc tribunals have been set up, for example to deal with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Lebanon and Sierra Leone. Other conflicts, many equally serious, have not seen special tribunals set up, which has sometimes provoked criticism that the decision on whether to do so is influenced by political factors.”

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was set up by the UN to prosecute serious crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia and to try their perpetrators. The majority of those indicted have been Serbs and this has led to accusations of bias from some observers. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticised the ICTY for failing to investigate a number of serious charges against the NATO forces, including the bombing of Serbian State Television and a railway bridge when it was evident that civilians had been struck. Amnesty's report into violations of humanitarian law recorded that NATO failed to take necessary precautions to minimize civilian casualties.[8]”

The International Criminal Court

The second half of the 20th century saw a movement to set up a permanent court to deal with the worst crimes against humanity. In 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted, which provided the legal basis for the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC came into being in July 2002 and sits in The Hague in the Netherlands.”

The ICC is the first permanent international court and has been set up to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression. Even though the Rome Statute is ratified by states, the ICC prosecutes individuals who are responsible for crimes, not the states. As of 1 January 2012, 119 countries are state parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, including nearly all of Europe, but excluding for example the United States, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Libya.[9]”

The Victims of Conflict

War and terrorism have a terrible and long-lasting impact on huge numbers of people. Deaths at the time of conflict are just one element: psychological trauma, collapse of the physical and economic infrastructure, displacement of people, injury, disease, lack of food, water or energy supplies and a breakdown of trust and normal human relations are some of the others. The impact can last for generations.”

With the decline in inter-state wars and the rise in civil wars and new methods of warfare, civilian populations are now at more risk and suffer higher casualties than professional soldiers. UN Women estimate that in contemporary conflicts as many as 90% of casualties are civilians, the majority of whom are women and children14. Rape and sexual violence are used as a weapon of war, as a tactic to humiliate, dominate and instil fear in communities.”

Women in Armed Conflicts[10]

In October 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 to address the issues faced by women in armed conflict. The Resolution calls for their participation at all levels of decision making on conflict resolution and peace building. Four further resolutions have since been adopted by the Security Council. The five documents focus on three key goals:”

- Strengthening women's participation in decision making

- Ending sexual violence and impunity

- Providing an accountability system

Child Soldiers

A particularly sobering development in warfare, particularly over the past ten years, is the use of children as soldiers in brutal conflicts. Child soldiers exist in all regions of the world and participate in most conflicts. However, the problem is especially critical in Africa, where children as young as nine have taken part in armed conflict. Most child soldiers are between the ages of 14 and 18. Child soldiers are recruited by both rebel groups and government forces.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires state parties to ensure that children under the age of 15 do not take part in hostilities. However, this is felt by many to be too low, and initiatives have been made to raise the minimum to 18 years old. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (with 143 state parties as of November 2011) rose the minimum age to 18.”

European countries do not recruit under the age of 17 and do not send soldiers into combat under the age of 18. The UK has the lowest recruitment age in Europe – 16 years old, although this is nominally for training purposes only. The UK has been widely criticised for this by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In Chechnya, children under 18 have reportedly served in rebel forces.”

Youth, War and Terrorism

Young people are directly concerned by war in many ways. In addition to the case of child soldiers mentioned above, young people constitute the vast majority of soldiers, especially in countries and times of national military service. It can therefore be said that young people are in the front line of the victims of war. In the case of professionalised armies, it is often young people from underprivileged social backgrounds who are enlisted into armed forces, because they have fewer opportunities of earning a decent living.”

Young people are often targeted by terrorist groups as possible agents of terrorist attacks, regardless of the motivation, as exemplified by the attacks in London in 2005. This is often attributed to the identity-searching that some young people experience and that makes them especially vulnerable to extremist ideas and ideals. Young people may also be specifically targeted by terrorist attacks, as exemplified by the attacks in Norway in 2011 and by attacks on schools in the Caucasus.”

Youth organisations have traditionally played an important role in raising awareness about the non-sense of war and the costs it imposes on young people. Several reconciliation and exchange programmes were set up after the carnages of the First World War; many of them still exist today, such as Service Civil International or the Christian Movement for Peace / Youth Action for Peace which promotes international voluntary youth projects and work camps.”

The European Bureau of Conscience Objection works for the recognition of the right to conscience objection to military service – the right to refuse to kill – in Europe and beyond.[11]”

Doubting Thomases and naysayer may argue that the means of doing the same may be misused but the ends always justify the means. In addition, that people should be worried about the result. The protection of life, liberty and security of the public is more important than the protection of the same for terrorists. The priority is to stop terrorism. Warmongers and their future generation should be made aware of the consequences of their acts and the consequences should not be pleasing (Freeman, 2002).”

War Resisters International is an international movement created in 1921 under the credo: War is a crime against humanity. It is therefore determined not to support any kind of war, and to strive for the removal of all causes of war. WRI promotes non-violence and reconciliation and supports conscience objectors and asylum seekers in cases of draft evasion or desertion.”

Aspect of Public Safety

A large number of factors pose threat to human life and create a feeling of insecurity among the population, resulting in a disruption in personal and social life. Public Safety is the concept of governmental organizations concerned with protecting their citizens from all kinds of threats. The term ‘public safety’ covers different aspects of the protection of the general population. Some of these include Protection against Accidents and Trauma, Protection against Crimes, Protection against Natural Hazards. Thus, the objectivity of law is the Protection and sustenance of public safety. It should be remembered that the disaster of 9/11 took place when the terrorists took advantage of the American social way of life where the number of domestic frequent fliers is high enough to suffer a low security system. The same is true about London underground rail blast. In both cases, the terrorists took advantage of the counties’ way of social life and it would be impossible to alter this way of life putting security as an alibi where the menace is organized by a fundamentalist motive. However, to impose public safety sometimes human rights clauses are violated.”

Conclusion

Terrorism aims at the destruction of democracy and the rule of law; in turn negatively impacting civilians’ enjoyment of human rights, particularly the rights to life, liberty and physical integrity. In sum, the impact of terrorism has always been a concern for the international community and it seems that national counter-terrorism strategy compelled both the enjoyment of all human rights and the effectiveness of the rule of law. Counter-terrorism and the assertion of human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing goals; therefore, in time of crisis, upholding all human rights is crucial and must not be sacrificed at any cost.

[1] https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/war-and-terrorism accessed on 01 Jan 2023.

[2] https://www.humanrights.is/en/human-rights-education-project/human-rights-concepts-ideas-and-fora/human-rights-in-relation-to-other-topics/human-rights-and-terrorism accessed on 01 Jan 2023.

[3] "Kenneth R. Bazinet, "A Fight Vs. Evil, Bush And Cabinet Tell U.S.". Daily News. New York. 17 September 2001. Retrieved 2 Jan 2023.

[4] "FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas, Audit Finds". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 02 Jan 2023.

[5] https://allafrica.com/stories/202009280116.html (PDF). The Costs of War. Retrieved 03 Jan 2023.

[6] Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument Retrieved 03 Jan 2023.

[7]Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

[8]NATO/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, Amnesty International - Report - EUR 70/18/00, June 2000; http://www.grip.org/bdg/g1802.html 

[9] http://www.grip.org/bdg/g1802.html  accessed on 04 Jan 2023.

[10] http://www.womenwarpeace.org/ accessed on 04 Jan 2023.

[11] Human rights and the fight  against terrorism, The Council of Europe Guidelines, 2005; http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/176C046F-C0E6-423C-A039-F66D90CC6031/0/LignesDirectrices_EN.pdf