Principled humanitarian action can be restricted by sanctions in regimes in a number of ways, notably via UN sanctions programs and state-level laws criminalizing the provision of material support of terrorism. When humanitarian organizations need to pay taxes, registration fees or checkpoint fees to access populations in need, they may run afoul of these laws if they are paid to a terrorist organization or its affiliate.
Narrowing the countering violent extremism (CVE) agenda, investing in conflict prevention, respecting humanitarian law and limiting the use of force will all be crucial components of governments' work of fighting terrorism, according to a new report from the International Crisis Group, Exploiting Disorder: al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
The term “violent extremism” is often ill-defined and open to misuse. When it is identified as the main threat to stability, governments "risk downplaying other sources of fragility, delegitimising political grievances and stigmatising communities as potential extremists," the report states. Both governments and donors must think carefully what to label CVE, the report notes, adding, "Re-hatting as CVE activities to address 'root causes', particularly those related to states’ basic obligations to citizens – like education, employment or services to marginalised communities – may prove short-sighted." Preventing crises will be much more powerful in containing violent extremism than CVE, the report asserts. "Nudging leaders toward more inclusive and representative politics, addressing communities’ grievances and measured responses to terrorist attacks usually make sense."
Lessons from Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen suggest that a new approach to terrorism and security threats is needed, according to a briefing from Saferworld, A New War on Terror or a New Approach to Peace?
"Twin Threats: How the Politics of Fear and the Crushing of Civil Society Imperil Global Rights" is the introductory essay in Human Rights Watch's 2016 World Report. In it, the organization's executive director, Kenneth Roth, examines the ways in which fear has fueled the shrinking space for civil society around the world.
Counterterrorism legislation is having a "qualitative impact on the work of peacebuilding organizations, their choices and freedom to choose where they work and with whom," concludes a new report from Conciliation Resources, Proscribing peace: the impact of terrorist listing on peacebuilding programs.
Shrinking civic space was one of the defining human rights issues of 2015, according to Maina Kiai, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to Freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, in his report, 2015: The Year in Assembly and Association Rights. In many parts of the world in 2016, however, that space is largely gone.
The Partner Vetting System (PVS) is a pilot program created to vet individuals in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and for-profit entities who apply for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts and grants, to ensure that USAID-funded activities are not inadvertently providing support to entities associated with terrorism. Under the PVS pilot program, the U.S. government requires many grant applicants to submit detailed personal information on key employees and subcontractors to USAID for comparison with intelligence databases.
In consortium with Ariadne (the European Funders for Social Change and Human Rights) and the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG), the European Foundation Centre (EFC) has published a report on Challenging the Closing Space for Civil Society, A Practical Starting Point for Funders.
An absence of inclusive, responsive and accountable governance was a major factor in the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to research by the humanitarian organization Mercy Corps.