Published On: June 19, 2026
Authored By: Tamanna Ashra
Renaissance Law College
Abstract
The article takes a two-pronged approach of a dual analytical framework to examine the relationship between terrorism and human rights in a multifaceted manner. It considers the direct effects that terrorism (by non-state actors) has on the right to life and security, and differentiates this from the indirect effects it has on these rights as a consequence of counter-terrorism measures undertaken by states.
The article, based on an analysis of international legal instruments such as the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy[1] and jurisprudence by the ECtHR[2], IACtHR[3], and Supreme Court of India makes an argument that counter-terrorism and human rights are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.[4] It ends with recommendations on how to continue to follow a human rights approach to global security.
Introduction
Terrorism is one of the greatest threats to the international human rights system. Attacking civilians with deliberate aims to instil fear and to coerce governments is an assault on human dignity and security. States have responded with a variety of measures to defend their population and ensure national security. This is a highly complex relationship which generates a strong conflict between security interests and the safeguarding of basic freedoms. For this reason, this article uses a dual-analytical approach to fully understand this dynamic. This approach requires a double analysis: direct examination of the effect of the terrorist attack as a violation of human rights, and examination of the effect of counter-terrorism measures implemented by the State on human rights. This will enable a comprehensive grasp of the threats faced by the human rights of people affected by terror events, coming from two separate, but related, sources.
Global Context of Terrorism and Human Rights
Terrorism seeks to destroy human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy. It poses a threat to the territorial integrity and security of states and aims to bring about the disintegration of legitimate governments. The challenge of the modern day to the world order is to answer the question of how to fight the existential threat of terrorism without sacrificing the very values of liberty and justice that the legal order is meant to protect.
Effective counter-terrorism measures and the promotion of human rights are not mutually exclusive, but complementary and mutually reinforcing, as stated in the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GA Res 60/288).
In this article, two analytical lenses are proposed to comprehend this effect. Firstly, it responds to the direct violation of human rights by terrorist groups, namely the right to life, the generation of refugee crises and the production of psychological trauma.
Second, it examines the indirect effects of counter-terrorism (CT) regimes, focusing on the loss of due process, the violations of privacy in the form of mass surveillance, and the chilling effect on freedom of speech.
Terrorism as Violation of Fundamental Rights
The Right to Life and Positive Obligations of States
The most direct and most harmful consequence of terrorism is the denial of the Right to Life, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[5] The focus of terrorism is to target civilians in order to cause fear and bring about political change, whereas traditional warfare is, by contrast, directed at combatants.
International law has increasingly affirmed that there is a positive duty on States to safeguard the right to life for all individuals living on their territory. In Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011),[6] this responsibility entails steps that states must take to prevent violence and to conduct thorough investigations into violent acts.
The Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression
Today’s anti-terror policies depend heavily on intelligence gathering, and the surveillance powers available to the state have grown to an unprecedented level. Mass data surveillance, interception of communications, and monitoring of online activities engage the right to privacy, which is guaranteed in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[7] and Article 17 of the ICCPR. Such surveillance can be necessary for security reasons but must be subject to law, pursue a legitimate purpose, and be proportionate to that purpose. Many surveillance programs are shrouded in secrecy and lack effective oversight, which raises serious human rights concerns.
Likewise, anti-terrorism laws which are applied broadly and in a vague manner can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression (Article 19, ICCPR). Such laws can be used to suppress dissent, silence human rights defenders, and punish journalists who cover sensitive issues, on the pretext that such coverage glorifies or encourages terrorism.
Displacement and the Refugee Protection Regime
Forced displacement is often caused by terrorism. Increased extremist activity has caused mass migration and pushed the international protection regime for refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention[8] to the breaking point.
People are forced to flee due to the direct threat of violence, yet counter-terrorism measures can result in restrictive border controls and possible breaches of the principle of non-refoulement.
A person must never be forced to return to a territory where there is a real risk of torture or death, even on account of the security concerns of the state concerned (see Saadi v. Italy (2008);[9] Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996)[10]).
The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment
Under international law, torture is prohibited in absolute terms; it is not a right that can be balanced against others or derogated from. Yet in the counter-terrorism context, this prohibition has come under great pressure. Documented abuses include the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” secret detention, and “extraordinary rendition.” The ECtHR confronted this directly in El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[11] The case concerned a German citizen who was mistakenly detained by Macedonian police and handed over to the CIA, which then transferred him to a secret detention centre in Afghanistan, where he was mistreated. The Court determined that Macedonia was responsible for the torture and ill-treatment inflicted upon him while he was detained at the airport, and that those who knew he faced a real risk of further torture and ill-treatment were complicit in his transfer to the CIA. The judgment clearly and strongly restated that States are not permitted to delegate torture or otherwise evade their human rights responsibilities by working with foreign intelligence agencies that practise torture.
Psychological Trauma and the Right to Safety
Terrorism causes collective psychological trauma besides physical harm, infringing on the right to security and health. The UN Commission on Human Rights has commented on the constant danger of terrorism and its impact on the civilian population, causing acute stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[12] This “terrorism-induced trauma” damages the social cohesion and psychological safety needed for the enjoyment of other human rights.
Human Rights in the Shadow of Counter-Terrorism
Due Process and the Diminishing of Fair Trial Rights
In response to the threat of terrorism, states tend to pass “exceptional” legislation that limits due process. Article 14 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) guarantees the right to a fair trial, but counter-terrorism measures often include arbitrary arrest, the use of secret evidence, and the creation of special courts.
The Indian Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)[13] struck a balance between the need for strict laws and constitutional safeguards, holding that even in the case of terrorism, the procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Digital Panopticon and Confidentiality
The right to privacy (Art. 17 ICCPR) has been one of the major casualties of the digital counter-terrorism era. Mass surveillance programs are frequently disproportionate and lack adequate judicial oversight. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017),[14] it was held that privacy is a fundamental human right, which is a sine qua non for human dignity.
In a similar fashion, in Roman Zakharov v. Russia (2015),[15] the ECtHR held that surveillance programs that are inadequate to protect against abuse do not satisfy the necessary safeguards for legitimate security measures.
Speech and Association Rights
The term ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist acts’ is often defined very broadly, and that definition is used to silence opposition and target civil society groups. This has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association.
Such actions are more often directed at human rights defenders and political opponents than at those who pose an actual security threat, and have been condemned by the UN Special Rapporteur on terrorism and human rights.[16]
Recommendation
To ensure a human rights-based approach to counter-terrorism, states should:
1. Ensure that all counter-terrorism (CT) legislation is clear, necessary, and proportionate.
2. Establish an independent judicial body to oversee surveillance and detention.
3. Abide by the principle of non-refoulement, and implement counter-terrorism strategy as a whole-of-government approach.
4. Recognise, finally, that the struggle against terrorism is fundamentally a struggle for respect for human rights — to abandon that respect is to hand the terrorist a victory by proxy.
Conclusion
A two-pronged legal response to the terror threat is required. States have a positive duty to protect their citizens against direct violence, and an equal duty to ensure that their own counter-terrorism operations do not undermine the rule of law. The dual-analytical approach shows how human rights in an age of terror are under attack from two sides at once. Acts of terrorism are a direct attack on human dignity and life. Meanwhile, inappropriate or overreaching state responses risk undermining the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
This is not, as it is sometimes presented, a simple dichotomy between security and liberty. International human rights law helps manage this tension: it acknowledges that certain rights may be restricted on grounds of public safety, but only where such restrictions are lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Some fundamental rights, such as the right against torture, cannot be suspended under any circumstance. A successful counter-terrorism strategy is not one that ignores human rights, it is one that is built upon them. Security does not require the suppression of the rule of law, due process, or fundamental freedoms; in fact, it depends on them for its long-term sustainability. A rights-respecting approach avoids dividing communities, preserves the legitimacy of the state, and ultimately upholds the very values that terrorism seeks to destroy.
References
[1] UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, G.A. Res. 60/288 (Sept. 8, 2006).
[2] European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
[3] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).
[4] OHCHR, Fact Sheet No. 32: Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism.
[5] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[6] Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 523.
[7] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948), art. 12.
[8] Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.
[9] Saadi v. Italy, (2008) 49 EHRR 30.
[10] Chahal v. United Kingdom, (1996) 23 EHRR 413.
[11] El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, App. No. 39630/09, 57 Eur. H.R. Rep. 25 (2012), paras. 183-185, 240.
[12] UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/52/Add.2 (Dec. 5, 1995).
[13] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
[14] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[15] Roman Zakharov v. Russia, (2015) 63 EHRR 71.
[16] UN Special Rapporteur on terrorism and human rights, UN Doc. A/62/263.
