A/HRC/40/52 Further, in addition to a top-down approach to regulation, there is also a lateral or horizontal approach, in which States are inspired by, or simply copy, legislation and measures that “work” in other States to restrict civic space. A. Overly broad definitions of terrorism 34. A defining trend in national implementation of the Security Council counterterrorism framework is the global emergence of overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism.58 As foreseen, these carry the potential for unintended human rights abuses, 59 and have been deliberately misused to target a wide variety of civil society groups, persons and activities. Such legislation is used to target, inter alia, civil society, human rights defenders, journalists, minority groups, labour activists, indigenous peoples and members of the political opposition.60 35. In some States, legislation to curb violent extremism, extremism, extremist activity, or radicalization are emerging. 61 The core concept of extremism is context dependent, which means that its definition can easily be challenged and manipulated, 62 and conceptually weaker than the term terrorism, which has an identifiable core..63 Such laws are likely to criminalize legitimate expression, including controversial viewpoints and information of legitimate public interest, 64 and restrict freedom of religion or belief.65 The number of criminal prosecutions and the use of administrative measures against civil society members are, unsurprisingly, increasing.66 B. Legislation criminalizing the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedom 36. National counter-terrorism legislation increasingly includes provisions that restrict rights that are key to civil society: freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. 67 In its resolution 7/36, the Human Rights Council stressed the need to ensure that invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The potential for adverse impact of such measures is exacerbated when applied to online-based forms of expression. 37. While incitement to terrorism is prohibited under international law, 68 many laws criminalize, often with a lack of precision, acts that do not amount to incitement because they lack the element of intent and/or of danger that the act will lead to the actual commission of violence. These include the glorification,69 justification,70 advocacy, praising 58 59 60 61 Recent examples include those referred to in communications sent to representatives of Guatemala, Honduras and Sri Lanka. For details of all communications sent under the mandate, see https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. For the examples mentioned here, see GTM 3-2018, HND 8-2016, and LKA 3-2016. A/HRC/16/51, para. 26. See, for example, PAK 4-2016, CHL 2-2018, PHL 5-2018, PAK 11-2016, SAU 12-2017 and TUR 3-2018. RUS 19-2018, RUS 15-2018, CHN 21-2018, TUR 12-2018. 62 Peter R. Neumann, Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalisation that Lead to Terrorism: Ideas, Recommendations, and Good Practices from the OSCE Region (International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, 2017). 63 A/70/371. CCPR/CO/79/RUS, paras. 20–21. 64 65 66 67 68 69 A/HRC/28/66/Add.1, paras. 49 and 67–69, A/HRC/22/51, para. 53, A/HRC/16/53/Add.1, para. 100 and E/CN.4/2005/61/Add.1, para. 152. Council of Europe, “Misuse of anti-terror legislation threatens freedom of expression”, 4 December 2018. GBR 7-2018 and AUS 2-2018. Security Council resolution 1624 (2005). Amnesty International, “Spain: Tweet… if you dare” (2018). 11