We use various third-party cookies to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. Please use the options below to manage your cookie settings. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Please be aware, if you deny cookies, certain features of our website may not work.
This will apply to all services
Google Analytics
YouTube
Albinfo/Wikimedia Commons>
At an expert meeting – online due to the COVID19 pandemic – leading international humanitarian and human rights legal scholars, social scientists, and practitioners discussed the legal, scientific, and practical aspects of counterterrorism measures, with a focus on their effectiveness, side effects, and legality.
Organized by the Counter-Terror Pro LegEm Project and the Geneva Academy, the meeting examined the effectiveness of measures to prevent and counter terrorism – closure of places of worship, vague prohibitions of ‘glorification of terrorism’, stop-and-search operations – and their impact on human rights.
‘To determine the legality, necessity, and proportionality of these measures under international human rights law, it is useful to evaluate their effectiveness and potential side-effects using social science methods and research on terrorism and violent extremism. This is precisely what we’ve done during this meeting’ underlines Professor Gloria Gaggioli, Director of the Geneva Academy.
The meeting’s findings will be synthesized and used to draft a policy guidance document on how to devise and monitor counterterrorism measures to ensure their effectiveness and conformity with international human rights law.
Peggy Marco/Pixabay
Counter-Terror Pro LegEm is a four-year research project funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and led by our Director, Professor Gloria Gaggioli.
The project combines legal analysis with social science research to examine the effectiveness of counterterrorism measures and their effects on human rights. It also analyses the structure of terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda or the Islamic State and sees whether they qualify as ‘organized armed groups’ for the purpose of international humanitarian law.
The project’s outputs will include an empirical analysis of contemporary counter-terrorism measures with a thorough legal analysis under human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as the above-mentioned policy guidance for states and international organizations.
Pavlofox/Pixabay
Pixabay
News
CCPR Centre
Our new Research Brief provides a comprehensive summary of the key decisions taken and recommendations given by all relevant stakeholders in implementing the recommendations of the TB Review 2020 process.
News
Revaz Tkemaladze
As every year and in the framework of the IHL core course given by Professor Marco Sassòli, twenty students of our LLM in IHL and Human Rights pleaded on the 2014 armed conflict in and around Gaza.
Short Course
ICRC
This short course, which can be followed in Geneva or online, discusses the extent to which states may limit and/or derogate from their international human rights obligations in order to prevent and counter-terrorism and thus protect persons under their jurisdiction.
Short Course
ICRC
This short course, which can be followed in Geneva or online, focuses on the specific issues that arise in times of armed conflict regarding the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights. It addresses key issues like the applicability of human rights in times of armed conflict; the possibilities of restricting human rights under systems of limitations and derogations; and the extraterritorial application of human rights law.
Project
Dave Klassen/The EITI
This project aims to further identify and clarify policies and practices for States and business, including public and private investors, across the full ‘conflict cycle’ and the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ pillars of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Project
The Geneva Human Rights Platform contributes to this review process by providing expert input via different avenues, by facilitating dialogue on the review among various stakeholders, as well as by accompanying the development of a follow-up resolution to 68/268 in New York and in Geneva.
Publication
