A/HRC/40/52 II. Impact that the global matrices that regulate counterterrorism, prevention of violent extremism and protection of national security have on civil society A. Security Council 16. In a report to the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur focused on the role of the Security Council in the development, since 11 September 2001, of international counter-terrorism frameworks and their impact on human rights. 30 In the present report she examines the human rights consequences of the regulatory requirements contained in Council resolutions 1373 (2001), 1624 (2005), 2170 (2014), 2178 (2014) and 2396 (2017), and of the overall approach of the resolutions on human rights, which are far-reaching and can be particularly severe for civil society. 1. Procedural aspect 17. Security Council resolutions regulating counter-terrorism and prevention and countering of violent extremism are all characterized by a lack of engagement with civil society actors in the determination of legal, political, social and cultural effects of such resolutions.31 Resolution 2178 (2014) is the first such resolution to contain a reference to civil society in its operative part.32 In its resolution 2396 (2017), the Council recognized the role that civil society organizations could play in the health, social welfare and education sectors in contributing to the rehabilitation and reintegration of foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and encouraged States to engage with them proactively in that context. 18. The Special Rapporteur cautions against co-opting civil society into State-led international and national security agendas, promoting limited engagement with civil society on specific issues, and allowing key constituencies, including women, to be instrumentalized and empowered solely in furtherance of a broader security agenda. Instead, the Security Council should positively promote civil society’s key role as a force for change and remind States of their obligations to respect and protect it. 2. Key human rights issues: lack of definitions of terrorism and of violent extremism 19. The Security Council’s requirement for States to adopt a number of measures in relation to “acts of terrorism”, a prohibited conduct that it has continuously failed to define precisely, is an issue has been highlighted under this mandate from its inception, 33 as it is at the source of some of the most egregious human rights violations, and central to the challenges faced today by civil society. Similarly, references made by the Council to “terrorists” as a category of individuals separated from the criminal acts,34 or to “terrorism in all forms and manifestations” as one of the most serious threats to international peace and security without further qualification, 35 have opened the door to repressive national measures against the lawful non-violent activities of civil society. The absence of any comprehensive definition of “violent extremism” in resolution 2178 (2014) and the impossibility of connecting the term to any specific definition also allows States to adopt highly intrusive, disproportionate and discriminatory measures, notably to limit freedom of expression. In particular, the term “extremism” is a poorly defined concept that has already been used to target civil society and human rights defenders. 36 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 A/73/361. Ibid. Resolution 1624 (2005) referred to the important role of, inter alia, civil society in efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding, and in promoting tolerance and coexistence. E/CN.4/2006/98, A/HRC/16/51 and A/73/361. See, for example, Security Council resolution 2170 (2014). Security Council resolution 2178 (2014). A/HRC/16/53/Add.1, paras. 99–106. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 46.