Advancing Humanitarian Commitments in Connection with Countering Terrorism: Exploring a Foundational Reframing concerning the Security Council
Authors: Lewis Dustin , Kapoor Radhika , Modirzadeh Naz 
Published: May 2022

The imperative to provide humanitarian and medical services on an urgent basis in armed conflicts is anchored in moral tenets, shared values, and international rules. States spend tens of billions of dollars each year to help implement humanitarian programs in conflicts across the world. Yet, in practice, counterterrorism objectives increasingly prevail over humanitarian concerns, often resulting in devastating effects for civilian populations in need of aid and protection in war. Not least, confusion and misapprehensions about the power and authority of States relative to the United Nations Security Council to set policy preferences and configure legal obligations contribute significantly to this trajectory. In this guide for States, we present a framework to reconfigure relations between these core commitments by assessing the counterterrorism architecture through the lens of impartial humanitarianism. We aim in particular to provide an evidence base and analytical frame for States to better grasp key legal and policy issues related to upholding respect for principled humanitarian action in connection with carrying out the Security Council’s counterterrorism decisions. We do so because the lack of knowledge regarding interpretation and implementation of counterterrorism resolutions matters for the coherence, integrity, and comprehensiveness of humanitarian policymaking and protection of the humanitarian imperative. In addition to analyzing foundational concerns and evaluating discernible behaviors and attitudes, we identify avenues that States may take to help achieve pro-humanitarian objectives. We also endeavor to help disseminate indications of, and catalyze, States’ legally relevant positions and practices on these issues. In section 1, we introduce the guide’s impetus, objectives, target audience, and structure. We also describe the methods that we relied on and articulate definitions for key terms. In section 2, we introduce key legal actors, sources of law, and the notion of international legal responsibility, as well as the relations between international and national law. Notably, Security Council resolutions require incorporation into national law in order to become effective and enforceable by internal administrative and judicial authorities. In section 3, we explain international legal rules relevant to advancing the humanitarian imperative and upholding respect for principled humanitarian action, and we sketch the corresponding roles of humanitarian policies, programs, and donor practices. International humanitarian law (IHL) seeks to ensure — for people who are not, or are no longer, actively participating in hostilities and whose needs are unmet — certain essential supplies, as well as medical care and attention for the wounded and sick. States have also developed and implemented a range of humanitarian policy frameworks to administer principled humanitarian action effectively. Further, States may rely on a number of channels to hold other international actors to account for safeguarding the humanitarian imperative. In section 4, we set out key theoretical and doctrinal elements related to accepting and carrying out the Security Council’s decisions. Decisions of the Security Council may contain (binding) obligations, (non-binding) recommendations, or a combination of the two. UN members are obliged to carry out the Council’s decisions. Member States retain considerable interpretive latitude to implement counterterrorism resolutions. With respect to advancing the humanitarian imperative, we argue that IHL should represent a legal floor for interpreting the Security Council’s decisions and recommendations. In section 5, we describe relevant conduct of the Security Council and States. Under the Resolution 1267 (1999), Resolution 1989 (2011), and Resolution 2253 (2015) line of resolutions, the Security Council has established targeted sanctions as counterterrorism measures. Under the Resolution 1373 (2001) line of resolutions, the Security Council has adopted quasi-“legislative” requirements for how States must counter terrorism in their national systems. Implementation of these sets of resolutions may adversely affect principled humanitarian action in several ways. Meanwhile, for its part, the Security Council has sought to restrict the margin of appreciation of States to determine how to implement these decisions. Yet international law does not demand that these resolutions be interpreted and implemented at the national level by elevating security rationales over policy preferences for principled humanitarian action. Indeed, not least where other fields of international law, such as IHL, may be implicated, States retain significant discretion to interpret and implement these counterterrorism decisions in a manner that advances the humanitarian imperative. States have espoused a range of views on the intersections between safeguarding principled humanitarian action and countering terrorism. Some voice robust support for such action in relation to counterterrorism contexts. A handful call for a “balancing” of the concerns. And some frame respect for the humanitarian imperative in terms of not contradicting counterterrorism objectives. In terms of measures, we identify five categories of potentially relevant national counterterrorism approaches: measures to prevent and suppress support to the people and entities involved in terrorist acts; actions to implement targeted sanctions; measures to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism; measures to prohibit or restrict terrorism-related travel; and measures that criminalize or impede medical care. Further, through a number of “control dials” that we detect, States calibrate the functional relations between respect for principled humanitarian action and countering terrorism. The bulk of the identified counterterrorism measures and related “control dials” suggests that, to date, States have by and large not prioritized advancing respect for the humanitarian imperative at the national level. Finally, in section 6, we conclude by enumerating core questions that a State may answer to help formulate and instantiate its values, policy commitments, and legal positions to secure respect for principled humanitarian action in relation to counterterrorism contexts.