Terrorism has inflicted fright and terror on about every corner of the Earth. Due to the hurting that it inflicts on people randomly, the United Nations has taken the menace of terrorist act earnestly and is actively prosecuting all member states to take part in counterterrorism attempts ( United Nations [ UN ] , 2008 ) . The counterterrorism docket is a precedence one for the UN for many old ages now. Countering terrorist act has been a hard chase because it is instantly loaded with ethical and moral issues. Due to terrorism aiming even guiltless adult females and kids and random civilians located at the incorrect topographic point and at the incorrect clip, many are tempted to prosecute counterterrorism through the “ oculus for an oculus ” attack. However, making this would do the counterterrorism attempts no less evil than the terrorists, so prosecuting in Acts of the Apostless to battle terrorist act must adhere to democratic rules ( Steven & A ; Gunaratna, 2007 ) . While terrorist act has been a flagellum for many decennaries now, the United States was forced to battle panic more sharply in the coming of the September 11 onslaughts which claimed the lives of 1000s. Measures have been promulgated utilizing assorted anti-terror attacks in order to protect civilians and to support the universe against terrorist act ( Bater, 2010 ) . However, battling terrorist act has become more hard because the US is forced to cover non merely with terrorists from abroad but even “ homegrown terrorists ” such as 19-year old Osban Muhamud who allegedly planted a bomb in a Christmas tree ( Thomas, Goldman & A ; Ryan, 2010 ) . Nine old ages after 9/11, the panic menace has non waned and deciding the menace of panic at place and abroad is far from over.
Models and Measures of Counterterrorism
There are three general theoretical accounts to battle terrorist act. The first theoretical account, the condemnable justness theoretical account ( CJM ) , aims to battle terrorist act while at the same clip continuing cardinal human rights and democratic rules. The 2nd theoretical account, the war theoretical account ( WM ) , emphasizes on keeping terrorist act itself than continuing democratic rights and places the province in a war-fighting manner to counter terrorist act efficaciously. The 3rd theoretical account integrates the old two, called the “ expanded condemnable justness theoretical account ” to supply greater flexibleness in counterterrorism attempts ( Steven & A ; Gunaratna, 2004 ) .
These theoretical accounts besides reflect current counterterrorism steps recommended by the UN and its member states, chiefly the United States ( Department of Homeland Security [ DHS ] , 2008 ) . Due to the fact that terrorists operate at assorted degrees, whether political, legal, economic, military, and through the media, attempts to battle terrorist act besides encompass these countries ( UN, 2008 ) .
Political Measures: Political schemes in battling terrorist act require that states address the root causes of terrorist act in their several states. Terrorists legitimize their violent Acts of the Apostless as a response to poorness, unemployment, and other socio-political plans. Political steps to counter panic require that states negotiate with panic groups and doing little grants with them. The danger with this scheme is that it gives terrorist groups legitimacy and may even promote other groups to fall back to terrorist act in order to accomplish their political ends and demands. Nonetheless, some authoritiess have addressed terrorist act by utilizing poverty-reduction plans, employment and support activities, land redistribution, and offering amnesties ( UN, 2008 ) .
Punitive Measures: Punitive steps are aimed at break uping a terrorist group ‘s line of life by cutting off its fundss and other resource-generating capablenesss ( DHS, 2008 ) . This involves censoring fund-raising enterprises of known front organisations of terrorist groups. Other punitory steps that are used in many include stop deading assets of known front organisations or of cardinal leaders, boycotting states found to harbour terrorists, and puting economic countenances, as in the instance of Iran and Iraq.
Judicial Measures: Judicial steps consider international homo rights jurisprudence and enact legal steps to forestall terrorist act. This includes confirmation of international conventions or regional understandings associating to the extradition, prosecution, and common legal aid to ease the gaining control of terrorists. Although this step is the most democratic signifier of counterterrorism, it presents many jobs such as the possibility of states declining to collaborate where the legal systems are non compatible and the refusal to prosecute suspected terrorists out of fright of revenge. Legally, prosecuting terrorists is a challenge given the non-uniform definition of terrorist act among states ( Steven & A ; Gunaratna, 2004 ) .
Intelligence assemblage: The oversights of 9/11 brought several steps to beef up intelligence in the United States. One of the earliest steps undertaken was the transition of the controversial Patriot Act which reduced the restrictions that jurisprudence enforcement bureaus were capable to in footings of seeking electronic mail, telephone, medical, fiscal, and professional records ( The Investigative Project on Terrorism, 2008 ) . The Act besides reduced the limitations of the US when garnering information on other states. The jurisprudence besides amended the definition of terrorist act to embrace domestic terrorist act, therefore, spread outing the powers of jurisprudence enforcement bureaus to battle terrorist act. The jurisprudence came under fire from civil rights groups and enhanced frights sing breach of privateness and increasing surveillance powers of the authorities ( Bater, 2010 ) .
Military Response: The usage of military for relatiative response is an application of the war theoretical account whereby civilian legal systems are temporarily suspended in favour of soldierly jurisprudence ( UN, 2008 ) . The military response is a controversial step in footings of international jurisprudence. It poses the likeliness of estranging the populace and giving the terrorists “ hero position ” ; furthermore, military response can be interpreted “ Acts of the Apostless of aggression ” and rise anti-US sentiment, doing the gaining control of terrorists more hard ( The Investigative Project on Terrorism, 2008 ) .
Different theoretical accounts and attacks to counterterrorism hold been applied by the United States and members of the United Nations. While each have its advantages in zeroing in on terrorists and forestalling the farther loss of life, certain democratic rights and ethical issues make such steps unstable and hard. This is because any attempt to weed out terrorist act must be balanced against international norms on human rights and democratic freedoms.