Baumann, Z.

English

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)How the Global Counterterrorism Forum Can Become More Human RightsCompliant (Part II)Baumann, Z.Publication date2022Document VersionFinal published versionLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Baumann, Z. (Author). (2022). How the Global Counterterrorism Forum Can Become MoreHuman Rights Compliant (Part II). Web publication or website, Opinio Juris.http://opiniojuris.org/2022/09/26/how-the-global-counterterrorism-forum-can-become-more-human-rights-compliant-part-ii/General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an opencontent license (like Creative Commons).Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, pleaselet the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the materialinaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letterto: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Youwill be contacted as soon as possible.Download date:24 Jan 20241/7September 26, 2022How the Global Counterterrorism Forum Can BecomeMore Human Rights Compliant (Part II)opiniojuris.org/2022/09/26/how-the-global-counterterrorism-forum-can-become-more-human-rights-compliant-part-ii/[Zsófia Baumann is a Junior Researcher at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in The Hague, whereshe works on topics related to foreign terrorist fighters, counterterrorism and human rightsand carries out research on the rehabilitation and reintegration of terrorist offenders.]Part I of this post outlined the main criticisms directed at the Global Counterterrorism Forum(GCTF) from the human rights community. It assessed the challenges the Forum faces interms of its procedures of document creation, the alleged lack of human rights compliantapproaches and accountability in its Framework Documents, and the concrete languagecontained within some Framework Documents. The following post will providerecommendations to address these.RecommendationsThough there are limitations to what the GCTF can do to address these criticisms withoutjeopardizing its very nature, it could aim to become more transparent with regards to itsworking procedures and the roles and responsibilities of its different bodies. In the longer2/7term, the GCTF could work towards a more systematic engagement with civil society,especially the human rights community, by setting up an Independent Advisory Committee.In addition, the Forum could work on complementing its already existing FrameworkDocuments with guidance on how to implement its good practices in a human rightscompliant manner.Short Term Recommendations to Address the Lack of Transparency Regarding the Forum’sInner Workingsa. Provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the GCTF’s bodiesEnhance inclusivity of the five GCTF Working Groups by inviting the “right experts” tothe table. While it might seem self-explanatory that inviting human rights experts and CSOsto GCTF meetings where Framework Documents are developed will lead to more inclusionof appropriate language in their text, this is often not the case. As highlighted by theinterviews for the M&E Report, often the “right experts” are not invited, which results in anoverly security-focused approach to topics such as preventing radicalization to violence orthe role of women in P/CVE. CSOs that specialize in advocating for human rights to beembedded in counterterrorism measures should be more present at meetings, as well asgrassroots organizations who have first-hand experience with both the positive and negativeimpacts of such measures.Implement clear, transparent and inclusive processes for document development andreview. Inviting the “right experts” to the meetings of the GCTF is only the first step. Theirparticipation will not result in more human rights compliant language unless they have theopportunity to actively contribute to the development of the Framework Documents. Whilenon-member countries and organizations (who are invited to the respective meetings) areinvolved in the early stages of the document creation process, they do not have access tothe final stages. During their drafting, Framework Documents usually go through two phasesof comments: the first being open to all participants who have contributed to the draftdocument and the second remaining restricted to GCTF member countries. In practice, thismeans that GCTF Members have the prerogative to cut any language they may not wish toinclude in the final product without consulting those who might have added that language inthe first place. This often results in a “watered down” version of the original draft with onlyvague references to human rights and rule of law obligations. Ensuring that not only GCTFMembers, but all other participants also have a final say could contribute to strongerlanguage. This, however, would require the revision of the GCTF’s current documentdevelopment process, via either opening up the second phase of the silence procedure tonon-member participants, or involving an IAC and its members (see section 3b), from thebeginning to the end. Following this up with practical guidance for implementation would thenlikely result in stronger human rights compliance (see section 3b).3/7Use existing capacity of human rights experts within the “GCTF community”. The“GCTF community” consists of a wide-range of experts, from non-member organizations,such as different UN agencies, other international organizations, NGOs, CSOs, academiaand the private sector. Special members of the “GCTF community” are the Forum’s InspiredInstitutions. The GCTF also works with a number of Implementing Partners (of which theAsser Instituut is one, where the author works), expert organizations who facilitate theactivities of its Working Groups and Initiatives and contribute to the development of theFramework Documents. Many of the Inspired Institutions and Implementing Partners have in-house expertise on the international legal implications of countering terrorism, which theGCTF could easily tap into to make sure the right experts who bring human rightsconsiderations to the fore are involved throughout the document development process.Incorporate an internal review process. Besides making it more transparent, an additionalstep of an internal review from a human rights perspective could be incorporated into thedocument development process. The Administrative Unit is already tasked with ensuringconsistency in both language and format of the Framework Documents. By adding a humanrights officer/legal expert to the team, the Administrative Unit could also review draftdocuments from a human rights language perspective.b. Rework the GCTF’s Terms of ReferenceThe Terms of Reference is the GCTF’s guiding document that “outline[s] the structure andfunctional aspects of how the Global Counterterrorism Forum operates.” It is a short, five-page-long document meant for “the internal use of the GCTF Members and otherstakeholders.” Though it is publicly available on the GCTF’s website, it has been criticized as“generic and gives little insight to the form, procedure and working methods of the Forum.”The Special Rapporteur noted in her 2019 report that as her office found it difficult to accessinformation on the workings of the GCTF, “other actors, including civil society actors, nationalparliaments or national human rights institutions would find it even more challenging.”The Terms of Reference is the only publicly-available document that could provide non-member countries and organizations an insight into the workings of the Forum. In order toenhance its transparency, it is therefore crucial that the GCTF’s Terms of Referencedocument is clear, detailed and easily accessible. With this, the GCTF could enable outsideactors to get involved, while addressing the criticism of opaqueness related to its internalworkings and contributing to more transparency surrounding its processes. In order for theTerms of Reference to become a useful document, it arguably needs to:Elaborate on procedures. While the Terms of Reference is quite detailed regarding thestructure of the GCTF (section I), the roles and responsibilities (section III), as well as theelection process of the Co-Chairs of the Forum and the different Working Groups (section I),description of the procedures of document creation remains very vague. Implementing clear,transparent and inclusive processes for document development and review would be4/7especially important for non-member countries and organizations who take part in thedevelopment of GCTF Framework Documents, but then might see their contributions“watered down” in the final output. Clear expectation management with regards to the role ofnon-member countries and organizations in the overall process would therefore be crucial. Inaddition, the Terms of Reference should also elaborate on a(n) (possible) internal reviewstep where human rights perspectives are incorporated into the documents (see previoussubsection).Provide guidance on involvement. The human rights community has been consistentlycalling for greater involvement in the activities of the GCTF, a sentiment echoed by theInspired Institutions, as well as multiple UN agencies, according to the findings of the M&EReport. The three Inspired Institutions work on the ground with a wide variety of actors andhave an extensive network of local and regional organizations. Complementing the previousrecommendation, it would be beneficial if guidance also existed for these organizations onhow to be involved in the activities of the GCTF. This would allow for a broader range ofactors to take part (as opposed to the “usual suspects”) and by extension contribute to moreinclusive language in the Framework Documents. In addition, defining the role and mandateof the Inspired Institutions, – both in the process of document development, as well asgenerally within the GCTF, – in the Terms of Reference, would allow for more local andregional organizations active in the same fields or regions to get involved. This would againnot only enhance inclusivity, but also allow for a greater coordinating role for the InspiredInstitutions, enabling them to use their considerable networks and contribute them to thework of the Forum.Define working methods. The Working Methods section of the Terms of Reference (sectionIV) could provide more information on 1) how the GCTF is funded and the different ways tocontribute (financially or in-kind) to the activities of the Forum; and 2) how its activities aremonitored and evaluated. Based on the conclusions of the M&E Report, the funding structureof the GCTF is not well-known, neither within nor outside of the Forum. This is not surprisinggiven that there is no information on funding on its website and, currently, there is only onemention in the Terms of Reference (section I/D), which only concerns contributions to theAdministrative Unit itself and does not provide information on how the other bodies arefunded or on how financially sustainable the GCTF is. The Working Methods section couldalso provide information on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the Forum’s activities.One of the main outcomes of the M&E Report (and in fact the reason for its commissioning inthe first place) was a general consensus on the importance of M&E for the future of theGCTF. Given that the GCTF is an informal platform that produces non-binding outputs, it willbe challenging to set benchmarks for its impact and then to evaluate how the Forum hasfared against these. However, a reworked Terms of Reference could provide an initial outlineof the roles and responsibilities of GCTF bodies in terms of M&E, based on therecommendations of the M&E Report.5/7Long Term Recommendations to Address the Lack of Inclusivity and Human RightsCompliancea. Establish an Independent Advisory CommitteeOther than setting out that “appropriate civil society experts” can be invited to participate inthe activities of the Working Groups and setting out the procedure for the approval of suchinvitations, the current Terms of Reference does not contain specific guidance for how theForum should systematically interact with CSOs. Other organizations, such as the GlobalInternet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), have implemented an arguably moreconstructive way to engage civil society actors in their activities. Though the GIFCT isdifferent from the GCTF in that it is a forum of private companies, as opposed to being aninter-governmental forum, its approach to engaging a wide variety of external stakeholderscould be a good way forward for the GCTF as well.The GIFCT is governed by an Operating Board made up of members from its foundingcompanies. This Operating Board is in turn advised by the Independent Advisory Committee(IAC) consisting of a number of government representatives, the EU, the UN, as well as atleast 12 civil society representatives. The IAC’s mandate is two-fold: it “identif[ies] andrecommend[s] priorities and key focus areas” to the Operating Board and “assess[es]progress against these recommendations and [the] GIFCT’s mission.” One aspect of theIAC’s role is to “ensure that GIFCT’s work is aligned with international human rights laws andprinciples, as respecting, promoting and defending human rights.” The IAC is alsoresponsible for, amongst others, producing an annual report to recommend strategicpriorities for the GIFCT for the upcoming year, assessing the progress made in the previousyear and identifying potential key areas of focus.An IAC similar to that of the GIFCT could also advise the work of the GCTF. ComprisingCSOs, academics, representatives of the private sector, as well as possibly non-membercountries, it could provide the Forum with independent expertise on core issues, such ashuman rights and gender. An IAC would not only allow for the systematic review of theGCTF’s activities against its commitment to ensuring the consistent inclusion of theprotection of human rights in its work, but it would also address concerns with regards to thetransparency of how civil society, members of academia and the private sector are involved.In addition, by incorporating a constant number of changing non-member countries via anIAC, it could remedy the stalemate around the question of membership in the Forum.Following up on the previous section, the reworked Terms of Reference could also cover thestructure and functioning of this newly created IAC.b. Provide guidance on how to ensure human rights compliance in a standardized manner6/7Including appropriate human rights language in GCTF Framework Documents is just the firststep. Although monitoring how these are then implemented on a national, regional and locallevel is key, it is beyond the mandate of the Forum. Instead, the GCTF could provideconcrete, standardized guidance on how its good practices and recommendations could beimplemented in a human rights compliant manner. This guidance could not only providepractical recommendations, but also present examples on how violations would look like inpractice and how compliance can be concretely ensured. On the basis of this guidance,national, regional and local government officials, as well as representatives of NGOs and theprivate sector could receive training. Developing such guidance, however, would requireconsensus from the GCTF’s Membership as it would entail a systematic overview of allGCTF Framework Documents produced by different Working Groups and Initiatives, co-chaired by different Members.ConclusionsThe recommendations outlined above can address some of the GCTF’s shortcomings andanswer some of the criticisms voiced by civil society and human rights experts morespecifically. The challenge, however, remains that in being informal and nimble in nature, theForum can and does easily pick up new themes and trends and is able to quickly react byproducing good practices to address these, but arguably without a rigorous attention to theimplications of the suggested good practices. The GCTF attracts a wide range of countries tothe table with very different approaches to and perspectives on CT and P/CVE, and theimportance of human rights more specifically. However, as it operates on the basis ofconsensus, the GCTF seeks the approval of all 30 of its Members to reach decisions andadopt documents. Because of this reality, it can be argued that the Forum oftencompromises on how strongly it advocates for human rights – at least in the language of itsFramework Documents – in favor of reaching consensus and developing good practices andrecommendations in a relatively short amount of time.On the other hand, the GCTF cannot simply pretend that its non-legally binding documentsremain exactly that: non-binding. With its close working relationship with the UN and theinterlinkages between the two organizations, such as a shared membership and priorities, itis inevitable that there will be some overlap between their outputs. The GCTF thereforecannot hide behind the veil of its informal nature and cannot ignore the fact that itsFramework Documents might end up becoming legally-binding norms.With these factors in mind, it is important for the Forum to actively seek to improve itself andto make sure that while preserving its core characteristics, it remains relevant by addressingthe criticisms aimed at its inner workings, the process by which its Framework Documentsare created, and the language contained within. By implementing the recommendationsoutlined above, the GCTF could at least start by becoming more inclusive and enable awider range of actors, such as human rights professionals, to participate in its work. Thisinclusion would therefore strengthen the language of its documents and by extension7/7contribute to their human rights compliant implementation on the ground. The GCTFcelebrated its 10-year anniversary last year. This milestone not only constitutes a goodmoment to reflect on and assess the Forum’s work, but it also creates the opportunity for theorganization to evolve into one that more seriously and concretely respects and advocatesfor the protection of human rights and the rule of law in the fight against terrorism.

How the Global Counterterrorism Forum Can Become More Human Rights Compliant (Part II)

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/150364716/opiniojuris.org-How_the_Global_Counterterrorism_Forum_Can_Become_More_Human_Rights_Compliant_Part_II.pdf

How the Global Counterterrorism Forum Can Become More Human Rights Compliant (Part II)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications