This thesis critically analyses the mobilisation of the language of human rights by and within
three UN principal organs involved in counter-terrorism: The General Assembly, the Security
Council and the office of the Secretary-General. The thesis shows that, in the context of
counter-terrorism, human rights language is strategically deployed in order to assert or
contest political power, legal authority and moral authority. Focusing on both the meetings
and the soft-law output of these three organs, the thesis explores a number of ways in which
the language of human rights is invoked in the context of the UN’s counter-terrorism work.
Firstly, the thesis shows how the notion of ‘respect for human rights’ is invoked in order to
differentiate between a democracy-loving, peaceful, civilised ‘us’ and the barbarous terrorist
enemy, sustaining the narrative of the war on terror that was written by the United States
and its allies in the aftermath of September 11. Secondly, the thesis explores the rhetoric of
states of the Global South. These states frequently use the language of human rights in order
to criticise the counter-terrorism policies and practices of the United States and its allies in
the war on terror, highlighting the irony in the latter’s claims to be global defenders of human
rights. Thirdly, the thesis examines how human rights promotion itself has, over time, come
to be spoken of as a counter-terrorism measure. Finally, the thesis suggests that human rights
provide a set of standards for evaluation of the conduct and decisions of UN branches. Thus,
overall, the thesis charts and analyses the politics of human rights as it has played out in the
UN’s counter-terrorism work over the past two decades, reflecting upon the implications of
these developments for both international law and the human rights movement
