STUDY GUIDE

25, 26 and 27 October, 2024

Reforming Resolution 1373

1
The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations,
including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet
whenever peace is threatened.
According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:
to maintain international peace and security;
to develop friendly relations among nations;
to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for
human rights;
and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions
of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make
recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power
to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under
the Charter.

Maintaining Peace and Security

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the

Council’s first action is usually to recommend that the parties try to reach an
agreement by peaceful means. The Council may:
set forth principles for such an agreement;
undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;
dispatch a mission;
appoint special envoys; or
request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific
settlement of the dispute.

When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring

them to an end as soon as possible. In that case, the Council may:
issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;
dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce
tensions, separate opposing forces and establish a calm in which peaceful
settlements may be sought.

Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures, including:
economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions,
and travel bans;

2
 severance of diplomatic relations;
blockade;
or even collective military action.
A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or
practices condemned by the international community while minimizing
the impact of the measures taken on other parts of the population and
economy.
A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or
practices condemned by the international community while minimizing the
impact of the measures taken on other parts of the population and economy.

During the Cold War, continual disagreement between the United States and
the Soviet Union made the Security Council an ineffective institution. Perhaps
the most notable exception to that occurred in June 1950, when the Soviets
were boycotting the Security Council over the issue of China’s UN
membership. The absence of a Soviet veto allowed the U.S. to steer through a
series of resolutions that authorized the use of military force to support South
Korea in the Korean War. Troops from South Korea, the United States, and 15
other countries would swell the ranks of United Nations Command to nearly 1
million by the war’s end. When an armistice was signed at P’anmunjŏm in July
1953, more than 250,000 troops—the overwhelming majority of whom were
Korean—had died while fighting under the banner of United Nations
Command in Korea.

Between the late 1980s and the early 21st century, the council’s power and
prestige grew. Beginning in the late 1980s, there was a surge in the number of
peacekeeping operations (including observer missions) authorized by the
Security Council: between 1948 and 1978 only 13 missions had been authorized,
but between 1987 and 2000 some three dozen operations were approved,
including those in the Balkans, Angola, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Somalia
.
While these operations experienced a measure of success—as evidenced by
the awarding of the 1988 Nobel Prize for Peace to UN Peacekeeping Forces—
failures in Rwanda and Bosnia led many to question the effectiveness of the
UN as a keeper of peace and of the Security Council as a deliberative body. In
April 1994, 10 Belgian troops guarding Rwandan Prime Minister Agathe
Uwilingiyimana were killed by Hutu extremists, and the Security Council
responded by voting to reduce the size of the UN Assistance Mission for
Rwanda (UNAMIR), an already understrength force of some 2,500 lightly armed
troops, by 90 percent. y the time the UN voted to bolster its peacekeeping
mission the following month,

3
the Rwandan genocide was well under way, and UNAMIR commander Roméo
Dallaire was struggling to save what civilians he could with the meagre force
that he had. In July 1995 Dutch peacekeepers tasked with securing the “safe
area” of Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, failed to protect hundreds of
Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys in the face of advancing Bosnian Serb
paramilitary troops. More than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed in the
subsequent Srebrenica massacre, and in 2014 a Dutch court ruled that the
government of the Netherlands was partially liable for the deaths of 300 of the
victims.

In the conflicts of the 21st century, the Security Council was a much less
effective body. Beginning in 2003, Arab militias backed by the Sudanese
government carried out a terror campaign in the region of Darfur. In spite of
the presence of an African Union peacekeeping force, hundreds of thousands
were killed and millions were displaced in what was called the first genocide of
the 21st century. In August 2006 the Security Council authorized the creation
and deployment of a peacekeeping force to Darfur, but the Sudanese
government rejected the measure. In the entire history of the UN, no
peacekeeping mission had ever failed to deploy once authorized by the
Security Council. A compromise was found in a joint peacekeeping force
known as the hybrid United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID),
authorized by the Security Council in July 2007. Large-scale UNAMID troop
deployment did not begin until 2008, some five years after the violence began,
and obstruction by the government of Sudanese Pres. Omar al-Bashir limited
the mission’s effectiveness.

The United States traditionally vetoed measures that were seen as critical of
Israel, and it did so more than three dozen times in the decades following the
Six-Day War. Russia used its veto to protect its interests in what it termed “the
near abroad”—the territories of the former Soviet Union—and to support the
regime of Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad. In 2008 Russia vetoed a measure
condemning its occupation of the Georgian republics of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. After the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, Russia and China
vetoed numerous attempts to stem the bloodshed in that conflict. Some half a
million people were killed in the fighting in Syria, and millions more were
displaced. The only significant action taken by the Security Council—the
creation of the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), a body to investigate the
use of chemical weapons by the Assad government and other combatants—
was ultimately halted by Russia when it vetoed the extension of the JIM’s
mandate. After Russia illegally annexed the Ukrainian republic of Crimea in
March 2014, it vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning the act, and,
when Russian-backed militants shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over
eastern Ukraine, Russia vetoed a resolution that would have created an
international tribunal to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the
loss of 298 lives.
4
The Security Council originally consisted of 11 members—five permanent
members (the Republic of China [Taiwan], France, the Soviet Union, the United
Kingdom, and the United States) and six nonpermanent members elected by
the UN General Assembly for two-year terms. An amendment to the UN
Charter in 1965 increased council membership to 15, including the original five
permanent members and 10 nonpermanent members. Among the permanent
members, the People’s Republic of China replaced the Republic of China in
1971, and the Russian Federation succeeded the Soviet Union in 1991. The
nonpermanent members are generally chosen to achieve equitable
representation among geographic regions, with five members coming from
Africa or Asia, one from eastern Europe, two from Latin America, and two from
western Europe or other areas. Five of the 10 nonpermanent members are
elected each year by the General Assembly for two-year terms, and five retire
each year. The presidency is held by each member in rotation for a period of
one month.

Each member has one vote. On all “procedural” matters—the definition of

which is sometimes in dispute—decisions by the council are made by an
affirmative vote of any nine of its members. Substantive matters, such as the
investigation of a dispute or the application of sanctions, also require nine
affirmative votes, including those of the five permanent members holding veto
power. In practice, however, a permanent member may abstain without
impairing the validity of the decision. A vote on whether a matter is procedural
or substantive is itself a substantive question. Because the Security Council is
required to function continuously, each member is represented at all times at
the United Nations headquarters in New York City.

United Nations Security Council Meeting of the United Nations Security

Council in 2014. The composition of the Security Council has been a
contentious matter, particularly since the end of the Cold War. Critics have
argued that the Security Council and its five permanent members reflect the
power structure that existed at the end of World War II, when much of the
world was under colonial rule. Reform efforts have remained elusive but have
centred on efforts to make the work of the Security Council more transparent
and on demands by important non-permanent members, such as Brazil,
Germany, India, and Japan (the so-called G-4), to obtain permanent
membership—or at least have special status within the Security Council.

5
One proposal put forward by the G-4 countries was to increase the
membership of the Security Council to 25 seats by adding six new permanent
members, including one each for themselves and two for Africa. Any state—
even if it is not a member of the UN—may bring a dispute to which it is a party
to the attention of the Security Council. When there is a complaint, the council
first explores the possibility of a peaceful resolution. International
peacekeeping forces may be authorized to keep warring parties apart pending
further negotiations (see United Nations Peacekeeping Forces). If the council
finds that there is a real threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of
aggression (as defined by Article 39 of the UN Charter), it may call upon UN
members to apply diplomatic or economic sanctions. If these methods prove
inadequate, the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take military action
against the offending nation.

In addition to several standing and ad hoc committees, the work of the council
is facilitated by the Military Staff Committee, Sanctions Committees for each of
the states under sanctions, Peacekeeping Forces Committees, and an
International Tribunals Committee.

6
Prior to 9/11, the UN Security Council’s approach to targeting issues of terrorism
was much less compulsory and much more direct. This method adhered to
pre-9/11 assumptions about the use of Chapter VII power in that sanctions were
clearly intended for a specific state or “concrete security threats.”[3] For
example, Resolution 1267 (1999) established a sanctions regime against the
Taliban.[4] All states were obliged to freeze assets and refuse entry or arrival of
aircraft affiliated with the Taliban government. The Security Council also
formed a committee to monitor the implementation of the resolution,
including review of reports submitted by each member country. This
committee was further empowered to keep a running list of individuals whose
assets could be frozen. Building upon this foundation, Resolution 1333 (2000)
banned the sale of weaponry as well as the provision of military assistance to
the Taliban.[5] Furthermore, states had to ensure the closure of Taliban offices
within their jurisdiction. In July 2000, the Security Council approved Resolution
1363, which primarily reinforced its commitment to monitoring progress on
Resolution 1267.[6] It is important to note that the Security Council merely
“urged” Member States to “enforce and strengthen” domestic legislation
aimed at compliance with resolutions 1267 and 1333. As such, the legal
language implied a request, not a mandate. Kim Scheppele, Director of the
Program in Law and Public Affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson
School and a primary critic of Resolution 1373, notes that these resolutions
typified the pre-9/11 approach: “singling out a particular state for sanctions and
only requiring actions from all Member States in order to enforce this narrowly
tailored objective.”[7]

When addressing the overall problem of terrorism, the Security Council never
imposed broad obligations on all states backed by the threat of sanction. In
Resolution 1269 (1999), the Security Council employed the non-binding
language of “calls upon” to encourage states to cooperate on matters of
terrorism prevention.[8] Even the Security Council’s immediate response to 9/11
did not demand action by all members. Resolution 1368, passed on September
12, 2001, avoided use of the imperative “decides” and instead opted for “calls
on.”[9] The called-upon states were persuaded to “redouble their efforts” in
terrorism prevention. This was hardly a mandate for action. Therefore, these
resolutions served more as lofty statements of principle than legal obligations
for all UN members, even though they were not directed at a particular state.
This approach accords with the historical usage of Chapter VII powers as
described above.

7
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted unanimously on 28
September 2001, is a counterterrorism measure passed following the 11
September terrorist attacks on the United States.

On September 28, 2001, less than three weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the UN
Security Council convened for less than five minutes to pass extraordinary,
unprecedented measures in counterterrorism policy under Resolution 1373.

Section 1 begins, “[d]ecides that all States shall,” indicating both mandatory
language and universal applicability. Four policies follow:
(1) preventing and suppressing the financing of terrorist acts;
(2) criminalizing terrorist funding (direct and indirect);
(3) freezing assets of terrorists and any participants or accomplices;
(4) prohibiting citizens from financially aiding terrorists.

Section 2 demands even more active participation of all Member States.

Section 2(a) implores them to abstain from “any form of support, active or
passive” which would benefit a terrorist or affiliated organization, including “by
suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the
supply of weapons to terrorists.” Subsection (b) invoked a vague duty to take
“necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts.” Other
subsections required states to deny safe haven to terrorists, prevent them from
launching attacks against other states, and make sure that they are “brought
to justice.” While these obligations impliedly expect Member States to act, they
do not explicitly necessitate a domestic legal transformation.

After laying out these general responsibilities, the “Security Council starts
legislating.”[14] In addition to bringing terrorists to justice, the resolution
declares that states had to ensure that “such terrorist acts are established as
serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations” with punishment
appropriate to the seriousness of the act. States were also expected to give one
another “the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal
investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of
terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession
necessary for the proceedings.” Finally, all countries had to institute
immigration reforms through “effective border controls and controls on
issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for
preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and
travel documents.

8
Counter Terrorism

In section 6, the Security Council returned to its obligatory wording and

decided to create a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) to monitor the
implementation of Resolution 1373. States had to report to the CTC within 90
days regarding their progress. This committee thus serves as the compliance
board for Resolution 1373’s novel imposition of international law upon
sovereign states. Yet, like most international organizations, it lacks direct
enforcement power and operates under the vague mandate of raising “the
average level of government performance against terrorism across the
globe.”[17] As a product of Chapter VII, the legally binding nature of the
resolution represents the only significant enforcement mechanism outside of
‘naming and shaming’ (i.e. identifying noncompliant members and publicly
excoriating them).

The plan is divided into five subheadings: (1) contact points between the CTC
and each member-state, (2) CTC plans for recruiting technical expertise, (3) the
actual reporting requirements of the member-states, (4) the type of assistance
to be provided by the CTC, and (5) details on how the CTC will disseminate
information about its activities.

The key element of the work plan -- indeed, the heart of UNSC 1373 -- lies in the
reporting requirements. It cites four specific areas in which member-states
should provide full information to the CTC:

1. What relevant legislation is in place or is being contemplated.

2. . What executive action has been taken or is being contemplated.
3. What other action, if any, has been taken to implement the letter and spirit
of the resolution.
4. What steps have been taken or are being contemplated to enhance
international cooperation in the area covered by Resolution 1373.

If the information provided is deemed insufficient, the CTC compliance

monitoring committee -- composed of about two dozen diplomats and
experts from various member-states -- may request additional reports to
"ensure full implementation of the resolution."

9
UN Charter Chapter VII

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's
powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of
any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take
military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".
The Chapter varies from Article 39 to 51.

The resolution, 1373, was adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter, and is therefore binding on all UN member states.

Resolution 1456 (2003);

The absence of any specific reference to human rights considerations was

remedied in part by Resolution 1456 (2003) which declared that "States must
ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in
accordance with international law, in particular, international human rights,
refugee, and humanitarian law."

Resolution 1566;

UN Security Council Resolution 1566 picked up loose ends from resolution 1373
by actually spelling out what the Security Council sees as terrorism:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to

cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose
to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or
particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

10
Although this definition has operative effect for the purposes of Security
Council action, it does not represent a definition of "terrorism" which binds all
states in international law. That is a task which could only be achieved by way
of agreeing to an international treaty under the auspices of the UN General
Assembly. Negotiations towards agreeing to such are ongoing, and a
Comprehensive Convention exists in draft form, however agreement to its
exact terms, most particularly the definition of "terrorism", remains elusive.

Resolution 1566 also called for the creation of a working group that will expand
the list of terrorist entities under sanction beyond the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The Critique
UN Security Council Resolution 1373 stands for the stark proposition that an
international organization can legislate. If this is the case, then two conclusions
must be taken into account. First, the Security Council seems to be a
legislature in this configuration. Legislatures retain the right to lawmaking
unless they delegate the power to another institutional branch. Second, if the
Security Council does in fact legislate, then Resolution 1373 looks a lot like a
case of “legiscide.” In fact, the Security Council left it to the Member States to
translate Resolution 1373’s desired policy outcomes into domestic legislation.
Coincidentally, country reports to the CTC regarding implementation show
that most States have adopted domestic counterterrorism laws and joined
international treaties in accordance with Resolution 1373.

Activities that fall within the realm of regulation include defining and
punishing terrorism, preventing and criminalizing funding for terrorists,
freezing assets, suppressing terrorist recruitment, and strengthening border
controls and identification procedures. The resolution also creates a committee
to monitor the implementation of the statute in the Member States, an
exercise in constituent policy.

However, there is a clear problem: the United Nations is not a nation-state, and
Member States are not individuals. Under Lowi’s model, regulatory policy
affects individual conduct and imposes obligations or positions. While
Resolution 1373 undoubtedly imposes obligations, it “decides that all States
shall…” (emphasis added). Moreover, the model anticipates coalition-driven
pluralistic politicking in which bargaining and compromise produce policy
outcomes. Such coalitions, by their very rooting in situational circumstances,
are supposed to be “too unstable to form a single policy-making elite” with the
final product representing the “residue” of the bargaining process.[45] Yet, the
U.S.-drafted resolution passed unanimously in less than five minutes through a
voting system composed of five veto-wielding and ten rotating political elites
(UN Permanent Representatives).

11
UNSC 1373 does not focus specifically on bin Laden or the Al Qaeda network,
but rather on "terrorism" writ large. Indeed, during a press conference on
October 19, CTC chairman Sir Jeremy Greenstock noted that it was not his
committee's purview to try to "define terrorism," but rather to "establish the
highest common denominator of action against terrorism in every territory of
members of the United Nations." The broad nature of the resolution is useful,
but as Greenstock acknowledged, there will be states who will try to "duck" the
realities of the resolution. In this regard, a key problem facing the CTC will be
the issue of definition.

There is a lack of clear consensus within the UN regarding the definition of

terrorism. Whereas the U.S. government has cited seven countries as "state-
sponsors of terrorism" and twenty-eight groups as "foreign terrorist
organizations," the only terrorist entities recognized as such by the UN system
are Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and bin Laden. Until recently, Libya and Sudan had
also been included among this group; Sudan was removed after government
officials offered some conciliatory post-September 11 statements, and Libya
after two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing were delivered to Scotland for
trial.

Some standard definitions of terrorist activities do exist, most notably the

twelve international conventions on terrorism (see the UN office for Drug
Control and Crime Prevention at [Link]). These conventions focus on
actions -- e.g., hijacking, bombing, hostage-taking, and financing -- and not the
specific individuals or organizations responsible for these acts. Perhaps more
problematic for garnering UN consensus is the fact that few states have signed
all twelve conventions.

Even with the limitations of UNSC 1373 and the UN system itself, the resolution
that passed in the wake of September 11 remains an important precedent for
the type of positive contribution the UN could make in the war against
terrorism. A sustained and effective campaign against terror will require
significant legislative and even constitutional reform of some member-states
on issues of extradition, refugee/asylum status, personal liberties, etc. In many
countries, this will be a complex and timely process, requiring a significant and
ongoing commitment of political will. This resolution, with its implicit threat of
coercive measures, could serve as a powerful motivational tool for states that
are reluctant to do what is necessary.

t the same time, however, it is unclear whether the Security Council has the
unity and will to seek full enforcement of 1373's provisions. One UN official
confided that 1373 was "revolutionary" because it "mandates norms." To a large
degree, September 11 was a product of the permissive environment tolerated
by many states.

12
Even in the aftermath of September 11, many states will attempt to limit any
change to the absolute minimum, either to preserve some of their indigenous
terrorist infrastructure or to prevent external intrusion into their domestic
affairs.

As Greenstock noted, the CTC is not "a law-enforcement" mechanism, it is a

"monitoring and analytical committee." Regrettably, as became the situation
with the UN Special Commission on Iraq, such monitoring committees do not
always inspire confidence. In the end, the success or failure of UNSC 1373 will
ultimately depend on the Security Council's willingness to enforce its Chapter
VII resolution with all means necessary, from concerted international sanctions
to the use of force. The legacy of two decades of largely unsuccessful U.S.
efforts to prompt states out of the terrorist business through diplomacy has
shown that these nations are rarely cowed by threats alone.

Impact of Resolution 1373

While the adoption of the resolution signaled intent by the Security Council to
appear responsive, it left more questions than answers about the role and
impact of the United Nations in addressing an increasingly transnational
threat posed by violent, well-resourced non-state actors with little interest in
political negotiations. With the adoption of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism
Strategy in 2006, the General Assembly added its voice to the chorus of
international counterterrorism efforts.

Since then, and notably in the past five years, the proliferation of UN
resolutions and activity on counterterrorism has generated tension between
existing multilateral entities working on related fields such as conflict
prevention and mitigation; development; gender and children; and the more
specific tasking to new entities focused specifically on counterterrorism and
preventing violent extremism. Moreover, some have argued that the
application of a counterterrorism lens has compromised traditional UN
functions such as mediation and the provision of humanitarian assistance.

Yet with internationally designated terrorist groups and their affiliates

operating in a majority of countries where the UN has a presence, either
through a political mission or peace operation, the lack of a unified UN
doctrine or approach to engaging with terrorist groups has left many entities
still adopting divergent and ad-hoc responses. This is despite the
establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED), to
support Security Council members in monitoring compliance with Council
resolutions, and the Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), to provide a
coordinating framework and support the delivery of counterterrorism
capacity-
13
building assistance. Nonetheless, in systemic terms, despite the establishment
of the UNOCT, tensions between the Security Council and General Assembly
make it difficult to identify a centralized voice on counterterrorism, and a lack
of clarity regarding the financial sustainability of much of the capacity-building
support remains, given its dependence on voluntary contributions.

The UN and its members have clearly sought to innovate when needed; the
establishment of CTED as a Special Political Mission co-located within UN
Headquarters in New York, and the evolution of their assessment visits and
thematic analyses signals the speed and creativity with which the UN can
respond to an emerging threat. Yet, the central question on the ultimate
impact of all this activity, and whether it has left the UN equipped to address
new and evolving threats and challenges, remains unclear. For many reasons,
including the sensitive nature of data related to terrorism and
counterterrorism; the near impossibility of coordinating the bureaucratic
processes of over forty different entities; the political nature of the relationship
between the UN and its member states; and a focus on outputs rather than
outcomes, it has been difficult to provide a comprehensive assessment of the
UN’s overall impact.

Some of this is attributable to the nature of the mandates and directives in

resolutions given to bodies like CTED. For example, by design and as illustrated
by the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s Technical Guide to the Implementation
of Resolution 1373, most of CTED’s assessments focus on process: whether
certain laws and measures have been adopted; whether certain processes are
put in place; and the resources (like personnel) allocated to a function. While
this does demonstrate compliance at some level, it does not indicate longer-
term impact or sustainability. Vague language in Security Council resolutions
contributes to this challenge. In SCR 2462—notable for its reference to the
importance of protecting principled humanitarian assistance—states are
urged, when designing and applying measures to counter the financing of
terrorism, to “take into account the potential effect of those measures on
exclusively humanitarian activities.” The resolution offers no further guidance
or benchmark to states, or CTED, for how to assess this.

14
Resolution 1456 (2003);
The absence of any specific reference to human rights considerations was
remedied in part by Resolution 1456 (2003) which declared that "States must
ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their
obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in
accordance with international law, in particular, international human rights,
refugee, and humanitarian law."

Resolution 1566;
UN Security Council Resolution 1566 picked up loose ends from resolution 1373
by actually spelling out what the Security Council sees as terrorism:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to

cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose
to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or
particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

Although this definition has operative effect for the purposes of Security
Council action, it does not represent a definition of "terrorism" which binds all
states in international law. That is a task which could only be achieved by way
of agreeing to an international treaty under the auspices of the UN General
Assembly. Negotiations towards agreeing to such are ongoing, and a
Comprehensive Convention exists in draft form, however agreement to its
exact terms, most particularly the definition of "terrorism", remains elusive.

Resolution 1566 also called for the creation of a working group that will expand
the list of terrorist entities under sanction beyond the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

The Critique

UN Security Council Resolution 1373 stands for the stark proposition that an
international organization can legislate. If this is the case, then two conclusions
must be taken into account. First, the Security Council seems to be a
legislature in this configuration. Legislatures retain the right to lawmaking
unless they delegate the power to another institutional branch. Second, if the
Security Council does in fact legislate, then Resolution 1373 looks a lot like a
case of “legiscide.” In fact, the Security Council left it to the Member States to
translate Resolution 1373’s desired policy outcomes into domestic legislation.

15
Coincidentally, country reports to the CTC regarding implementation show
that most States have adopted domestic counterterrorism laws and joined
international treaties in accordance with Resolution 1373.

Activities that fall within the realm of regulation include defining and
punishing terrorism, preventing and criminalizing funding for terrorists,
freezing assets, suppressing terrorist recruitment, and strengthening border
controls and identification procedures. The resolution also creates a committee
to monitor the implementation of the statute in the Member States, an
exercise in constituent policy.

However, there is a clear problem: the United Nations is not a nation-state, and
Member States are not individuals. Under Lowi’s model, regulatory policy
affects individual conduct and imposes obligations or positions. While
Resolution 1373 undoubtedly imposes obligations, it “decides that all States
shall…” (emphasis added). Moreover, the model anticipates coalition-driven
pluralistic politicking in which bargaining and compromise produce policy
outcomes. Such coalitions, by their very rooting in situational circumstances,
are supposed to be “too unstable to form a single policy-making elite” with the
final product representing the “residue” of the bargaining process.[45] Yet, the
U.S.-drafted resolution passed unanimously in less than five minutes through a
voting system composed of five veto-wielding and ten rotating political elites
(UN Permanent Representatives).

UNSC 1373 does not focus specifically on bin Laden or the Al Qaeda network,
but rather on "terrorism" writ large. Indeed, during a press conference on
October 19, CTC chairman Sir Jeremy Greenstock noted that it was not his
committee's purview to try to "define terrorism," but rather to "establish the
highest common denominator of action against terrorism in every territory of
members of the United Nations." The broad nature of the resolution is useful,
but as Greenstock acknowledged, there will be states who will try to "duck" the
realities of the resolution. In this regard, a key problem facing the CTC will be
the issue of definition.

There is a lack of clear consensus within the UN regarding the definition of

terrorism. Whereas the U.S. government has cited seven countries as "state-
sponsors of terrorism" and twenty-eight groups as "foreign terrorist
organizations," the only terrorist entities recognized as such by the UN system
are Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and bin Laden. Until recently, Libya and Sudan had
also been included among this group; Sudan was removed after government
officials offered some conciliatory post-September 11 statements, and Libya
after two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing were delivered to Scotland for
trial.

16
Some standard definitions of terrorist activities do exist, most notably the
twelve international conventions on terrorism (see the UN office for Drug
Control and Crime Prevention at [Link]). These conventions focus on
actions -- e.g., hijacking, bombing, hostage-taking, and financing -- and not the
specific individuals or organizations responsible for these acts. Perhaps more
problematic for garnering UN consensus is the fact that few states have signed
all twelve conventions.

Even with the limitations of UNSC 1373 and the UN system itself, the resolution
that passed in the wake of September 11 remains an important precedent for
the type of positive contribution the UN could make in the war against
terrorism. A sustained and effective campaign against terror will require
significant legislative and even constitutional reform of some member-states
on issues of extradition, refugee/asylum status, personal liberties, etc. In many
countries, this will be a complex and timely process, requiring a significant and
ongoing commitment of political will. This resolution, with its implicit threat of
coercive measures, could serve as a powerful motivational tool for states that
are reluctant to do what is necessary.

At the same time, however, it is unclear whether the Security Council has the
unity and will to seek full enforcement of 1373's provisions. One UN official
confided that 1373 was "revolutionary" because it "mandates norms." To a large
degree, September 11 was a product of the permissive environment tolerated
by many states. Even in the aftermath of September 11, many states will
attempt to limit any change to the absolute minimum, either to preserve some
of their indigenous terrorist infrastructure or to prevent external intrusion into
their domestic affairs.

As Greenstock noted, the CTC is not "a law-enforcement" mechanism, it is a

"monitoring and analytical committee." Regrettably, as became the situation
with the UN Special Commission on Iraq, such monitoring committees do not
always inspire confidence. In the end, the success or failure of UNSC 1373 will
ultimately depend on the Security Council's willingness to enforce its Chapter
VII resolution with all means necessary, from concerted international sanctions
to the use of force. The legacy of two decades of largely unsuccessful U.S.
efforts to prompt states out of the terrorist business through diplomacy has
shown that these nations are rarely cowed by threats alone.

17
The UN and its members have clearly sought to innovate when needed;
the establishment of CTED as a Special Political Mission co-located
within UN Headquarters in New York, and the evolution of their
assessment visits and thematic analyses signals the speed and creativity
with which the UN can respond to an emerging threat. Yet, the central
question on the ultimate impact of all this activity, and whether it has left
the UN equipped to address new and evolving threats and challenges,
remains unclear. For many reasons, including the sensitive nature of
data related to terrorism and counterterrorism; the near impossibility of
coordinating the bureaucratic processes of over forty different entities;
the political nature of the relationship between the UN and its member
states; and a focus on outputs rather than outcomes, it has been difficult
to provide a comprehensive assessment of the UN’s overall impact.

Some of this is attributable to the nature of the mandates and directives

in resolutions given to bodies like CTED. For example, by design and as
illustrated by the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s Technical Guide to the
Implementation of Resolution 1373, most of CTED’s assessments focus on
process: whether certain laws and measures have been adopted;
whether certain processes are put in place; and the resources (like
personnel) allocated to a function. While this does demonstrate
compliance at some level, it does not indicate longer-term impact or
sustainability. Vague language in Security Council resolutions
contributes to this challenge. In SCR 2462—notable for its reference to
the importance of protecting principled humanitarian assistance—states
are urged, when designing and applying measures to counter the
financing of terrorism, to “take into account the potential effect of those
measures on exclusively humanitarian activities.” The resolution offers no
further guidance or benchmark to states, or CTED, for how to assess this.

18
Global War on Terror

September 11, 2001, shocked the international system, changing global

perspectives on both the threat of terrorism and the tools required to prevent
it. Although multilateral instruments against terrorism have existed since the
1960s, the unprecedented reach and potential of terrorist networks such as al-
Qaeda and its affiliates constitute a new danger that challenges standing tools
and institutions. Despite the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May
2011, the world is still—a decade after September 11—looking for an effective
way to respond to the global terrorist threat.

In recent years, terrorist networks have evolved, moving away from a

dependency on state sponsorship; many of the most dangerous groups and
individuals now operate as nonstate actors. Taking advantage of porous
borders and interconnected international systems—finance, communications,
and transit—terrorist groups can reach every corner of the globe. While some
remain focused on local or national political dynamics, others seek to affect
global change.

At the forefront of this trend is al-Qaeda. From its base in the borderlands
between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the al-Qaeda network has spread widely,
establishing branches or affiliates elsewhere, including in North Africa, Yemen,
and Southeast Asia. Driven by an extreme Salafi ideology—characterized by
opposition to Western influence and the goal of creating a global Islamic
caliphate—al-Qaeda operatives have killed thousands—from Madrid to Bali to
Baghdad. What is more, the group's alluring ideology extends its reach,
prompting some individuals outside its direct command to take violent action.
The threat from al-Qaeda has proven global, multifaceted, and difficult to track
and contain. It continues to pose the most prominent terrorist threat.

Other groups, however, have also emerged, and operate, with their own
distinct goals, outside traditional networks and hotspots. Europe and the
United States are not immune from terrorism within their borders. This global
diffusion of the threat requires a comprehensive response that provides
solutions on national, regional, and international levels—and addresses not
only the methods but also the factors that can contribute to the spread of
terrorism.

Since September 11, generating such a comprehensive response has proven

difficult. The United Nations, the world's foremost multilateral body, has made
strides in

19
developing legal and normative means to combat terrorism, yet member
states' perceptions of the threat of terrorism remain uneven. Measures taken
outside the United Nations—the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Financial
Action Task Force, and others—provide encouraging frameworks, but many
are nonbinding and voluntary.

Overall, the international counterterrorism regime continues to suffer from

three main weaknesses. First, lack of a universal agreement over what
constitutes terrorism weakens efforts to formulate a concerted global
response. Second, multilateral action suffers from inadequate compliance and
enforcement of existing instruments. Third, although counterradicalization and
deradicalization initiatives have gained some attention over the last five years,
progress is lacking, particularly in states with limited resources and expertise.

MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

The Invasion of Afghanistan (2001)
The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was one of the
earliest and most significant actions of the GWoT. The goal was to
dismantle the Taliban regime, which had provided safe harbor to Al-
Qaeda operatives, including Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the
9/11 attacks.
This military action was framed as part of a broader effort to implement
the global objectives of Resolution 1373, which emphasized the need to
deny safe havens to terrorists. NATO’s Article 5 was invoked for the first
time in support of the invasion, reflecting the collective security
framework endorsed by the resolution.

The Iraqi War (2003)

In 2003, the US-led coalition launched an invasion of Iraq under the
premise that the regime of Saddam Hussein posed a terrorist threat
due to alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and
links to terrorist groups. While the connection between Iraq and Al-
Qaeda was tenuous at best, the invasion was justified as part of the
broader War on Terror.
The war in Iraq, however, proved controversial and led to destabilization
in the region, contributing to the rise of ISIS. Critics argue that the Iraq
invasion undermined global efforts to combat terrorism and diverted
resources from the broader goals of Resolution 1373, which called for a
more coordinated and legalistic approach to counterterrorism.

20
Counterterrorism Operations and Drone Strikes
As part of the GWoT, the US expanded the use of drone strikes and
special operations in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and
Libya to target terrorist leaders and cells. These actions were intended
to prevent terrorist plots and degrade the operational capabilities of
groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
This military-focused approach raised questions about compliance with
international law, particularly regarding sovereignty and civilian
casualties, which became points of contention in relation to the human
rights provisions Global Counterterrorism Cooperation.

UNSC Resolution 1373 and International Cooperation

Resolution 1373 called for enhanced international cooperation in the
fight against terrorism, including sharing intelligence, harmonizing
legal frameworks, and suppressing terrorist financing. The GWoT, in
turn, required the participation of allies worldwide to track and disrupt
terrorist networks across borders.
The United States worked closely with allies in NATO, the European
Union (EU), and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance (US, UK,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand) to strengthen global counterterrorism
efforts. This cooperation was crucial for conducting counterterrorism
operations, sharing intelligence, and tracking terrorist financing.
International organizations like INTERPOL and the Financial Action
Task Force (FATF) became key partners in the global effort to counter
terrorist financing and cross-border crime, aligning closely with
Resolution 1373’s objectives.

Targeted Sanctions and Travel Bans

In line with Resolution 1373’s mandate, the US and other states
participating in the GWoT imposed sanctions and travel bans on
individuals and entities linked to terrorist groups. The US Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) played a
significant role in freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and
organizations globally.
The UN Sanctions Regime (including the 1267 Committee) was used to
blacklist terrorists and associated groups, making it illegal for states to
finance or support them. These sanctions aimed to cripple the ability of
terrorist groups to operate financially, aligning directly with the
financial prohibitions outlined in Resolution 1373

Counter Insurgency Measures

Governments use a variety of tactics and techniques known as
"counterinsurgency" to oppose insurgent movements that aim to
topple the status quo.

21
Political repression, economic disparity, grievances rooted in ethnicity or
religion, and historical injustices are some of the factors that give rise to
insurgencies. These elements foster conditions in which marginalized groups
may turn to irregular warfare to further their political goals.
Throughout history, insurgencies have played a vital role in forming
countries. For instance, the Viet Cong in 1955 used guerilla warfare
against South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam
War, which ultimately resulted in a significant change in the balance of
power in the region. Comparably, the Irish War of Independence (1922)
demonstrated how a well-coordinated rebel force may obtain political
sovereignty by utilizing popular support.
The employment of irregular warfare techniques is one of the
characteristics of insurgencies. Tactics that take advantage of the
imbalance between the rebels and the government, like ambushes and
sabotage. They frequently look to the local populace for support,
highlighting the necessity for governments to resolve fundamental
issues in order to stop the emergence of these movements. In order to
defeat insurgent groups and promote legitimacy and stability within
impacted communities, counterinsurgency strategies must integrate
military action with political and social measures.

The European Union (EU) has been one of the most active regions in
implementing and adapting the provisions of UNSC Resolution 1373 into its
regional security framework. Below is an elaboration on how the EU has
approached counterterrorism, particularly in response to the obligations laid
out in the resolution.

1. Legal and Institutional Framework

a. EU Legislation on Counterterrorism

Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA: Following UNSC

Resolution 1373, the EU adopted this framework decision in 2002 to
establish a common definition of terrorism, which aligned with
global efforts to criminalize terrorist activities and financing across
all member states. The decision was revised in 2008 to include acts
such as inciting terrorism, recruiting individuals for terrorist
purposes, and training for terrorism.
Directive (EU) 2017/541: This directive replaced the 2002 Framework
Decision, strengthening the EU’s legal framework by broadening the
scope of terrorist offenses, including offenses related to returning

22
foreign fighters, recruitment, and incitement to terrorism. It also made the
financing of terrorism a criminal act, fulfilling one of the main requirements of
UNSC Resolution 1373.

b. EU Agencies Involved in Counterterrorism

EUROPOL: The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement
Cooperation plays a central role in facilitating intelligence sharing
and cooperation between law enforcement agencies of member
states. It operates the European Counter Terrorism Centre
(ECTC), which serves as a hub for intelligence sharing,
coordination of counterterrorism operations, and risk
assessments.
EU INTCEN (Intelligence and Situation Centre): As part of the
European External Action Service (EEAS), EU INTCEN provides
strategic intelligence assessments to EU institutions, particularly
focusing on external terrorist threats and global security risks.
Frontex: The European Border and Coast Guard Agency is
responsible for enhancing border control and security to prevent
the movement of terrorists, fulfilling key objectives of Resolution
1373 concerning cross-border counterterrorism efforts.

2. Terrorist Threats and Response in the EU

Post-9/11 Era and Al-Qaeda Influence
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the EU prioritized
counterterrorism efforts, aligning itself closely with the objectives of
UNSC Resolution 1373. The threat of Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism led
to the strengthening of border controls, intelligence cooperation,
and the criminalization of terrorism financing.
The Islamic State (ISIS) and Foreign Fighters
The rise of ISIS in the 2010s marked a significant shift in the EU’s
counterterrorism priorities. The emergence of foreign fighters—EU
citizens traveling to conflict zones in Syria and Iraq to join ISIS—
posed a significant security threat. The returning foreign fighter
phenomenon led to new challenges in implementing Resolution
1373’s provisions, particularly in terms of detecting and prosecuting
returning fighters and preventing radicalization.
The EU Directive 2017/541 was a direct response to the threat posed
by ISIS and foreign fighters, criminalizing participation in a terrorist
group abroad, training for terrorism, and inciting terrorist acts.
Lone-Wolf and Small-Cell Attacks
The EU has also faced a surge in lone-wolf attacks (e.g., the 2016
Nice attack) and small-cell terrorist operations, often inspired by
jihadist ideology but conducted independently. These attacks have

23
exposed the difficulty in preemptively identifying radicalized individuals,
highlighting the need for effective early warning systems and community-
based counter-radicalization strategies.

3. Countering Terrorism Financing

Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Compliance
The EU has aligned itself with the FATF’s recommendations, which
are closely linked to the objectives of UNSC Resolution 1373. Through
the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2015) and 5th Anti-
Money Laundering Directive (2018), the EU introduced stricter
regulations to monitor financial transactions, enhance transparency
of beneficial ownership of companies, and improve information-
sharing mechanisms to combat terrorist financing.
The EU Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) network was established
to enable member states to cooperate on identifying and disrupting
terrorism financing, focusing on money laundering and illicit flows.
These FIUs are instrumental in detecting suspicious transactions and
sharing intelligence across borders.
Cryptocurrencies and Emerging Financial Technologies
The EU has begun addressing the challenge posed by
cryptocurrencies and other emerging financial technologies, which
can be exploited for terrorist financing. The 5th Anti-Money
Laundering Directive extended the anti-money laundering (AML)
and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) regulations to cover virtual
currencies, mandating that cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet
providers implement stricter due diligence procedures

4. Preventing Radicalization and Recruitment

The Radicalization Awareness Network (RAN)
The RAN was established by the European Commission in 2011 as a
platform for practitioners involved in counter-radicalization efforts
(social workers, teachers, law enforcement, community leaders, etc.).
It aims to develop strategies to prevent radicalization, particularly
among youth and vulnerable populations. By fostering cooperation
at the grassroots level, the RAN aligns with the preventive aspects of
UNSC Resolution 1373, which emphasizes tackling the root causes of
terrorism.
Community-Based and Online Radicalization Prevention
Many EU member states have implemented community-based
counter-radicalization programs, working closely with local
communities to identify at-risk individuals and prevent radicalization
before it leads to violence. These efforts have increasingly focused on
countering online radicalization, where social media platforms are

24
used by terrorist groups to recruit and spread propaganda. The EU Code of
Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, agreed with major tech
companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, is an example of EU efforts to
curb the dissemination of extremist content online.

5. EU Internal Security Strategy and Multilateral Cooperation

Internal Security Strategy (2015-2020)
The EU’s Internal Security Strategy, updated in 2015, placed
counterterrorism at the forefront of regional security policies. Key
components include preventing terrorism through better
intelligence sharing, safeguarding external borders, and enhancing
coordination with external partners. The strategy highlights the
importance of balancing security and human rights, in line with
broader European values, which has been a point of contention
within UNSC counterterrorism efforts.
Multilateralism and Transatlantic Cooperation
The EU works closely with external partners, including the United
States and NATO, to strengthen its counterterrorism efforts.
Cooperation with the US, through data-sharing agreements (e.g.,
the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, Passenger Name Records),
allows the EU to enhance its capability to track and disrupt terrorist
networks globally. This transatlantic cooperation mirrors the
international coordination mandated by UNSC Resolution 1373.
EU and Regional Partners
The EU also engages in multilateral counterterrorism efforts through
its partnerships with regional organizations like the African Union
(AU), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). These partnerships
focus on combating transnational terrorism, strengthening border
security, and building local capacity for counterterrorism, especially
in regions where terrorism poses an immediate threat to global
security.

Counterroirsm in Southeast Asia:

Southeast Asia, with its diverse nations, cultures, and religions, has long been a
focal point of global counterterrorism efforts. The region faces a unique set of
challenges related to terrorism, including insurgencies, separatist movements,
and the influence of transnational extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda,
ISIS, and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). Following the passage of UNSC Resolution 1373
in 2001, Southeast Asian countries intensified their efforts to combat terrorism,
enhancing cooperation, legal frameworks, and security measures in line with
the resolution’s mandates.

25
Post-9/11 and UNSC Resolution 1373: Key Counterterrorism Measures
Legal Reforms and Terrorism Laws
Following the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1373, many Southeast Asian
countries implemented extensive legal reforms to align with the
resolution’s provisions. The resolution required states to criminalize
terrorism, prevent terrorism financing, and cooperate with international
efforts to combat terrorism.
Indonesia passed Law No. 15/2003, which established terrorism as a
specific crime and allowed for the detention of suspects without trial for
extended periods. The law was further strengthened after the 2018
Surabaya bombings, reflecting Indonesia’s commitment to Resolution
1373.
Malaysia revived and expanded its Internal Security Act (ISA), which
allows for detention without trial, through the Security Offences
(Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act
(POTA). These legal frameworks enabled the Malaysian government to
take preemptive action against terrorism, often in collaboration with
regional and international partners.
The Philippines enacted the Human Security Act of 2007, later
replaced by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which granted the
government broad powers to prevent and suppress terrorism. This
legislation was criticized for its potential to infringe on civil liberties but
was seen as necessary to meet the obligations set forth by Resolution
1373.
Regional Cooperation: ASEAN and the ASEAN Convention on Counter-
Terrorism (ACCT)
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a
central role in fostering regional cooperation against terrorism. In 2007,
ASEAN member states signed the ASEAN Convention on Counter-
Terrorism (ACCT), which serves as a framework for regional
collaboration and action on counterterrorism.
The ACCT aligns with Resolution 1373’s call for international
cooperation, including intelligence sharing, capacity building, and the
harmonization of legal frameworks. It emphasizes the need for joint
efforts to prevent terrorism financing, improve border controls, and
combat terrorist recruitment.
ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and other ASEAN-led initiatives have
brought together member states and external partners like the United
States, Australia, and the European Union to exchange information,
strengthen law enforcement cooperation, and develop a collective
approach to combatting terrorism

26
UN Member States
Role of permanent and non-permanent UNSC members in shaping the
counter-terrorism policy
Impact of Resolution 1373 on domestic counter-terrorism laws
Combat against terrorism by Member States, including both global and
regional terrorism
International Organisation
Role of FATF in countering Terror Financing
The IMF and World Bank’s role in strengthening financial systems.
Collaboration between the UN, Interpol and other international bodies
Civil Societies and Human Rights Organisations
Influence of Civil Rights Society in advocating for the protection of
human rights in counter-terrorism policy
Role of NGOs and thank tanks in providing an analysis and a
recommendation in the reform
Collaborating of government and civil societies in addressing the root
causes of terrorism.

(Questions Any Resolution Must Answer)

What should be the universally accepted definition of terrorism under
international law, and how can the international community ensure
consensus on this definition to avoid ambiguities or misuse in
counterterrorism efforts?
How can the definition ensure that legitimate resistance movements or
acts of self-determination are not unfairly categorized as terrorism?
How can the international community ensure that states are fully
complying with Resolution 1373’s requirements for counterterrorism efforts,
particularly those lacking resources or technical capacity?
What mechanisms can be put in place to strengthen regional cooperation
and intelligence sharing, especially in regions like Southeast Asia, where
transnational terrorist networks are prevalent?
How can future reforms to Resolution 1373 better address concerns
regarding human rights violations, particularly in countries where anti-
terror laws have led to abuses, such as prolonged detention without trial or
the curtailment of free speech?
How can the resolution provide clearer guidelines to balance effective
counterterrorism measures with the protection of civil liberties and due
process?

27
How can Resolution 1373 be strengthened to improve global efforts to
prevent terrorism financing, especially in regions where informal
economies or corruption make it difficult to track financial flows?
What additional provisions are needed to enhance border control
cooperation, particularly in areas with porous borders, such as the maritime
regions in Southeast Asia, to prevent the movement of terrorists and the
trafficking of arms?
How can Resolution 1373 be revised to incorporate more comprehensive
strategies for addressing the socio-economic and political conditions that
contribute to radicalization and recruitment by terrorist groups?
How should Resolution 1373 be updated to address new forms of terrorism,
such as cyberterrorism, lone-wolf attacks, and the use of the dark web for
recruitment and fundraising?
What measures can be introduced to combat the growing threat of foreign
terrorist fighters returning from conflict zones, and how can states
cooperate to manage the reintegration or prosecution of these individuals?
What mechanisms can be introduced to ensure greater accountability for
states that fail to comply with Resolution 1373, including sanctions,
reporting obligations, or other forms of pressure?
How can international bodies like the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee
(CTC) or Financial Action Task Force (FATF) be empowered to assess,
support, and enforce compliance more effectively?
What specific resources or programs can be introduced to assist
developing countries or those with weaker institutional frameworks in
building effective counterterrorism capacities in line with Resolution 1373?
How can regional organizations like ASEAN and AU be better integrated
into global counterterrorism frameworks to promote localized solutions to
terrorism threats?
How should the international community define and measure the success
of Resolution 1373’s implementation, both in terms of reducing terrorist
activities and safeguarding human rights?
What benchmarks or indicators can be used to ensure that reforms are
having the desired effect in preventing terrorism and its underlying causes
globally?

28
“Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the
Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Articles 39-51) | United Nations.” the United
Nations, [Link] Accessed 16
September 2024.

“Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.” Wikipedia,

[Link]
Accessed 16 September 2024.

“The EU's response to terrorism - Consilium.” [Link],

[Link] Accessed
16 September 2024.

“Looking Back to Move Forward: The Role of the UN in Addressing Evolving

Terrorist Threats.” IPI Global Observatory, Naureen Chowdhury Fink.

Maizland, Lindsay. “The Global Regime for Terrorism.” Council on Foreign

Relations, [Link] Accessed 16
September 2024.

““Making the World Safe for Democracy”: UN Security Council Resolution 1373,
the International Imposition of Counterterrorism Policies, and the ‘Arenas of
Power’ Model.” Cornel University, Edward Grodin.

“Security and Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Southeast Asia.” Rise to Peace, 29

August 2022, [Link]
terrorism-efforts-in-southeast-asia/risetopece/. Accessed 16 September 2024.

“United Nations Security Council | History & Members.” Britannica, 12

September 2024, [Link]
Council/History. Accessed 16 September 2024.

“United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.” Wikipedia,

[Link]
. Accessed 16 September 2024.

29
“UNSC 1373 and the War against Terror: An Important If Untested Tool.”
Washington Institue, David Schenker.

“What is the Security Council? | Security Council.” the United Nations,

[Link]
Accessed 16 September 2024.

30