A/HRC/43/46 extremism working group of the Global Counterterrorism Forum addresses diminishing radicalization and recruitment to terrorism through relevant approaches to countering violent extremism at the international, regional, national and local levels. It has developed a number of tools, such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum Ankara Memorandum on Good Practices for a Multi-Sectoral Approach to countering Violent Extremism, aimed at guiding the working group’s actions, including on matters relating to gender, rehabilitation, reintegration and prisons. 12. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, almost a decade after the term made its way into United Nations resolutions, and some five years after the Secretary-General21 made it a priority for United Nations agencies and programmes, as well as Governments, the definition of “violent extremism” remains opaque and deeply contested. She warns against the use of new terminology that, like terrorism, is overly vague and allows for broad discretion in its application. 22 The introduction of new terminology does not in and of itself provide any guarantee against its abusive application and the adoption of sweeping measures to prevent and counter violent extremism. The absence of an international definition contributes to the fact that, across the globe, an ever-expanding range of measures fall under that umbrella. They include, on the one hand, measures that are part of the counter-terrorism apparatus –the “soft tools” available to law enforcement – ultimately aimed at increasing the number of individuals convicted for terrorism-related crimes and, on the other hand, social and economic measures that address the long-term challenges faced by marginalized communities and individuals, substituting social, cultural and economic rights-based entitlements held by individuals and communities under international law. Both approaches come with multiple human rights challenges and must be approached with caution at every step. In that sense, the use of “violent extremism” as a basis for the adoption of new strategies, measures and legislation must be seen as significantly more hazardous for human rights than the term “terrorism”. The Special Rapporteur underscores that the lack of semantic and conceptual clarity surrounding violent extremism is an obstacle to any in-depth examination of the impact on human rights of strategies and policies to counter violent extremism, as well as of their effectiveness in reducing the threat of terrorism. 23 13. The Special Rapporteur highlights another critical and prima facie non-human rights compliant practice, namely, the use and application of the term “extremism” – and not only “violent extremism” – in national law in multiple States. She has grave concerns about the use of the terminology of “extremism” and its expanding ambit,24 in both policy and law in multiple States.25 She has serious concerns that the term lends itself to illegitimate judgments about what extremism is, highlighting that this can lead to the inclusion of non-violent groups on executive lists of “extremist” entities, one notable example of which is groups responding to the climate emergency.26 14. The category of “extremist” crimes is particularly vague and problematic. Absent the qualifier of “violent extremism conducive to terrorism”, the term remains broad and overly vague and may encroach on human rights in profound and far-reaching ways. The Special Rapporteur takes the view that the term “extremism” has no purchase in binding international legal standards and, when operative as a criminal legal category, is irreconcilable with the principle of legal certainty; it is therefore per se incompatible with the exercise of certain fundamental human rights. 15. The definitional conundrum remains a persistent problem, as policies aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism continue to develop without a clear notion of the phenomenon they are aimed at addressing. Many of the issues addressed in the present 21 22 23 24 25 26 A/70/674, para. 4. See E/CN.4/2005/103, para. 32; and E/CN.4/2006/98, para. 26. A/HRC/31/65, para. 55. Ibid., para. 21. For example, Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are members, and the revised interpretation thereof, 2017. Vikram Dodd and Jamie Grierson, “Terrorism police list Extinction Rebellion as extremist ideology”, Guardian, 10 January 2020. 5