Governments’ vague and overbroad definitions of “terrorism,” “terrorist organisations,” and “violent extremism” are driving serious and systemic human rights violations worldwide and should be radically narrowed in any new UN framework, Alkarama highlighted in its latest report submitted to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights.
The submission responds to the Special Rapporteur’s call for input on definitions of “terrorism,” “terrorist organisation,” and “violent extremism” ahead of a thematic report to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2026. It offers an in-depth legal analysis of abusive counterterrorism laws and practices in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), while widening its scope to other regions including the European Union. Based on this analysis, Alkarama sets out concrete recommendations for a revised, human-rights-compliant international definition of terrorism.
“Decades of experience show that the way ‘terrorism’ is defined is not a dry legal technicality. Rather, it is one of the main engines of repression, discrimination, and civic space crackdown worldwide,” said, Me Rachid MESLI, Alkarama’s Director. “The UN expert has a critical opportunity to insist on a narrow, harm-based definition of terrorism and to roll back the use of counterterrorism as a tool of repression of dissenters, minorities, and human rights defenders alike.”
Alkarama’s submission centres on six main issues: the human rights risks of existing terrorism definitions; physical conduct elements of the definition (actus reus); mental elements and purposes (mens rea); the designation of “terrorist organisations”; the shortcomings of the draft UN Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Convention; and the dangers of embedding “violent extremism” and “extremism” as parallel legal categories in terrorism prevention frameworks.
Overbroad Terrorism Definitions and Human Rights Abuses
The submission documents how, across the MENA region, vague and expansive terrorism definitions have facilitated the criminalisation of peaceful expression, assembly, association, and religious practice, as well as the targeting of political opposition, social movements, and civil society groups.
Beyond its analysis of common features shared by MENA countries, Alkarama also highlights its findings in EU countries where broad terrorism, “extremism,” and security laws have justified multiple severe administrative measures including illegal expulsions based on vague and unchecked intelligence files rather than clearly defined violent acts or threats. Alkarama and other bodies have repeatedly found that such definitions that have migrated from emergency laws into ordinary law are applied in arbitrary and discriminatory ways,
Furthermore, the report reveals a troubling pattern where counterterrorism laws originally intended for exceptional circumstances have gradually been normalised, creating a climate where peaceful activities can be criminalised and entire communities face disproportionate scrutiny. This has eroded fundamental rights protections and enabled systemic discrimination, particularly affecting Muslim communities and other groups who find themselves targeted not for violent actions but solely for their identity or beliefs.
The report also describes how abusive practices migrate from one state to another through international counter-terrorism cooperation, creating cross-border harms that endanger dissenters seeking asylum abroad. These harmful practices manifest through abusive expulsions, and security-based removals that are carried out under expansive terrorism labels, often violating fundamental protections against torture and non-refoulement. This international cooperation, intended to combat terrorism, has instead created dangerous pathways that put vulnerable individuals at risk of persecution and torture.
A Need for Narrow, Harm-Based Model Definition
The report urges the Special Rapporteur to revise the 2010 model definition of terrorism, serving as the benchmark for best practice. Under this approach, terrorism should be limited to intentional acts that constitute killing or serious bodily injury, carried out with the specific intent to unduly compel a government or international organisation. The report suggests limiting the scope of acts to only killing and serious bodily injury and to limit the specific intent to compelling government and organisations in a way to protect the right to civil disobedience and dissent.
In its submission, Alkarama calls for the explicit exclusion from the core definition of terrorism of offences against property-only or purely economic harms, as well as vague aims such as “seriously destabilising political, constitutional, economic or social structures”, and motivational elements based on religion or other protected characteristics. It also recommends explicit clauses safeguarding peaceful protest, trade union activity, human rights and humanitarian work, academic and journalistic activities, artistic expression, and religious practice from being treated as acts of terrorism, ensuring that legitimate activities remain protected from counterterrorism overreach.
Mental Element, Purposes, and Discriminatory Motive Clauses
The submission emphasizes the need for a clearly defined mental element that requires specific intent both to commit the violent act and to cause the relevant harm, thus rejecting lower thresholds such as negligence or mere foreseeability of harm for core terrorism offences. While it supports retaining terrorism as a dual-intent crime – serious violence plus the special intent to terrorize the population or coerce a government or international organisation – it also highlights the need to limit the second one to avoid criminalising civil disobedience.
The report also warns against defining terrorism based on political, religious, or ideological motives, particularly criticizing laws and practices that have led courts to treat Islamic religious practice itself as a matter of criminal prosecution. Drawing on legal analysis from multiple MENA and Western states, the report concludes that such motive requirements are unnecessary under international law and contribute to both crackdowns on civil society and the over-securitization of Muslim communities in counter-terrorism and extremism prevention efforts.
Defining “Terrorist Organisation” and Regulating Listing Practices
Alkarama supports the development of a narrow international definition of “terrorist organisation” for listing and designation purposes, closely tied to a restrictive terrorism definition. An organisation should only be considered “terrorist” where it has a stable structure and has as its primary purposes or activities the planning, direction, or commission of acts that meet the hard-core terrorism definition.
The submission calls for robust safeguards around listing and designation regimes, including judicial or independent quasi-judicial involvement in designations; effective rights to be informed and to challenge listings; clear evidentiary standards; periodic review or sunset clauses; and explicit prohibitions on designations based solely on secret intelligence notes or ideological affinity, religious identity, or peaceful association.
Lastly, it stresses that human rights NGOs, humanitarian organisations, academic institutions, journalists’ associations, religious institutions, and other civil society actors must not be listed solely based on their lawful activities or contacts.
Inadequacy of the Draft UN Comprehensive Convention
The report finds that the definition of terrorism in the draft UN Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Convention under negotiation since 2001 remains inadequate and requires significant improvements. Alkarama warns that the draft mirrors many of the defects seen in domestic laws across different regions, including reliance on broad concepts such as “serious damage,” “major economic loss,” and threats to “fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures,” while failing to embed explicit non-discrimination and human rights safeguards.
Alkarama recommends aligning the draft Convention’s definition with the revised model definition of the SR, incorporating explicit non-discrimination and human-rights clauses, strengthening protections against refoulement and other serious violations.
Rejecting “Violent Extremism” and “Extremism” as Legal Categories
The submission concludes that “violent extremism” and “extremism” are way too malleable and thus incapable of adequate legal definition consistent with international human rights law. They should, therefore, not be incorporated into international legal frameworks as binding categories.
These terms lack a clear material element and instead focus on beliefs, attitudes, and perceived “radicalism,” which has led to disproportionate targeting of Muslims and other groups, and to the extension of counterterrorism tools to environmental and other civil society activists.
Alkarama recommends that any new UN guidance should discourage the use of “violent extremism” and “extremism” as operative legal terms, encouraging states to instead rely on clearly defined offences.
Key recommendations
In conclusion, Alkarama made several recommendations for the Special Rapporteur's mandate, including:
Regarding the revision of the Model Definition of Terrorism:
Amend the 2010 definition of terrorism to focus only on acts that cause serious bodily harm or death. As such, it is essential to:
- Limit the definition to serious physical violence against persons.
- Exclude crimes against property (theft, destruction of equipment, etc.).
- Avoid vague or discriminatory grounds (such as religion or ethnicity).
- Limit the definition to only acts with clear and specific terrorist objectives (terrorising the population and – subject to fundamental safeguards – influencing the behaviour of a state or organisation)
Ensuring the protection of fundamental rights in counter-terrorism laws
In view of the systemic and globalised violations of fundamental rights committed in the context of the fight against terrorism, ensure that any international definitions of terrorism embed strong human rights safeguards. Concrete measures to this end include:
Explicitly include the principle of non-discrimination in the development and implementation of anti-terrorism laws
Ensuring that refugees' rights are respected
Strictly apply the rule of non-refoulement, which prohibits any return of a person to a country where he or she would be at risk of torture and persecution
Protect civic space where citizens can express themselves and assemble peacefully
Protecting legitimate activities
Anti-terrorism laws must never criminalise the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, including:
The peaceful expression of opinions
The right to peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom of Religion
It should ensure the protection of legitimate activities such as:
Human rights advocacy
Humanitarian actions
Academic Research
Journalism
Artistic creation
Practice of law
A strict and independent framework for the registration and designation of terrorist organisations
Alkarama recommended that what constitutes a "terrorist organisation" be defined very precisely and that very strict procedures be established for listing or designating an organisation as such. Such guarantees would always include essential procedural safeguards such as:
Oversight by independent courts
Right of access to justice to effectively challenge such a decision
Possibility of appeal, including to independent international mechanisms such as the mandate of the Rapporteur himself,
Avoiding vague legal categories
Alkarama stressed the importance of not creating new offences based on vague and malleable concepts such as "extremism".
Any definition of terrorism must give priority to existing criminal offences that are clearly defined and the application of conventional criminal laws for misconduct. Such safeguards are essential to prevent counter-terrorism laws from being abused or discriminatory.
“States have used counterterrorism language to punish people not for what they have done, but for who they are and what they believe,” MESLI said. “The UN should insist that ‘terrorism’ be defined around clearly delineated violent acts and that any global framework include strong safeguards against discrimination and attacks on civic space.”
For more Alkarama reporting on counterterrorism and human rights, please visit: https://www.alkarama.org/en/issues/terrorism-counter-terrorism