University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review


Isaac Kfir

Document Type



Since 9/11, the UN’s counter-­‐terrorism regime has developed two distinct approaches to combating international terrorism. The Security Council follows a traditional security doctrine that focuses on how to best protect states from the threat posed by international terrorists. This is largely due to the centrality of the state in Security Council thinking and attitudes. On the other hand, the General Assembly and the various UN human rights organs, influenced by the human security doctrine, have taken a more holistic, human rights-­‐based approach to the threat of international terrorism. This paper offers a review of how the dichotomy above affects the application of UN policy vis-­‐à-­‐vis the UN’s counter-­‐terrorism regime. This paper calls for a bridging of the gap between these two approaches, advocating an interdisciplinary approach that combines the traditional state security and human security regimes.