From Compliance to Strategy: Rethinking the Role of Human Rights in National Security and Countering Violent Extremism

Commentary by Edmund Mbigili

Published March 5, 2026

"If we sacrifice [human rights] in our response, we are handing victory to the terrorists." - Koffi Annan, International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism, and Security

More than seven years have passed since former UN Secretary-General Koffi Annan died, but the question persists: Do current countering violent extremism (CVE) frameworks treat human rights merely as legal compliance or as a strategic asset in advancing national security objectives? In practice, the UN Security Council is championing whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches to human rights as a compliance requirement in global and national CVE efforts rather than as a strategic component of national security itself. This conceptual gap has had significant implications for the success of many CVE responses globally and has further escalated the spillover of violent extremism (VE). This compliance-oriented approach is particularly visible in how CVE measures are designed and implemented. Recent years have seen a significant increase in counterterrorism measures, which are often short-sighted policies that disregard human rights by only focusing on the security response. Focusing on security response as the sole element has often made outcomes worse, as it has been at the expense of the lives, liberty, and property of innocent civilians. To shape a more resilient security environment through CVE efforts, it is important to appreciate human rights as central to strategy rather than merely as a tool to align with international laws.

The Strategic Cost of Treating Human Rights as a Box-Ticking Exercise

It is true that VE poses a real and serious threat to human rights and that it is a phenomenon that cannot be entirely eradicated across the world. Many governments use the danger posed to human rights to justify a security-first approach in the fight against VE. For example, Nigeria has consistently described the use of force as unavoidable due to the scale of the VE threat by arguing it poses a serious threat to human rights, including the rights to life and freedom of expression, which then warrants prioritizing security measures over certain protections. Similarly, member state representatives at the UN Security Council have emphasized that VE constitutes "a serious threat to international peace and security," reinforcing the rationale for robust security measures. However, growing evidence shows that such measures are neither sustainable nor effective, and may ultimately be counterproductive. Many countries prioritize hasty reactions with limited human rights compliance, which achieve temporary success but brings unintended, negative long-term consequences that can outweigh their benefits. In this context, states view human rights as an obstacle to attaining security goals, as opposed to an essential component of addressing VE, enacting laws, and pursuing strategies that ignore or partially respect and protect human rights in any security response.

CVE measures in many countries have been criticized for being overly broad or for being used to infringe on human rights by suppressing the rights to free speech, association, and peaceful assembly; targeting minorities; reducing fair trials; utilizing improper detention practices; and violating the right to life, often involving impunity and reprisals. This can indirectly lead to real or perceived political exclusion, injustice, abuse, or lack of access to justice, which can create societal fractures and leave grievances to fester. This can undermine the legitimacy of CVE measures, which may make extremist narratives more likely to spill over to those who feel victimized and excluded. These measures fuel resentment and weaken trust and cooperation with the communities they seek to protect against VE. Thus, security-first approaches to CVE that disregard human rights often generate unintended strategic costs, as they deepen community grievances and create conditions conducive to further radicalization.

Groups such as al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Boko Haram, and al Shabaab have exploited these grievances to portray themselves as defenders of affected populations, which in turn diminishes public trust in the state and undermines the success of CVE efforts.

Afghanistan provides an illustrative example. The United States and NATO responded to the 9/11 terrorist attacks with military campaigns focused on eliminating, detaining, or capturing insurgent leaders and dismantling their networks. Airwars Civilian Harm data estimates tens of thousands of innocent civilian deaths from U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, which has been widely referenced in studies linking harm against civilians to insurgent recruitment and local grievances. Human Rights Watch reinforces this point by arguing that Afghan families and communities felt significant resentment and anger over perceived impunity, which weakened relationships between communities and international forces. In turn, the Taliban gained public support and recruitment through individual anger and the desire for revenge.

Although these efforts removed extremist regimes in Afghanistan, they fueled a cycle of conflict and failed to enable long-term strategies to counter radicalization, as extremists exploited human rights violations to generate local resentment and anti-U.S. narratives for recruitment and public support. Ultimately, this flawed approach led to the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops and the swift Taliban takeover in 2021.

Somalia is another example where CVE efforts have faced challenges in fully upholding human rights standards. Amnesty International highlights how the military CVE operations involving Somali forces-working in collaboration with clan militias under pressure to counter al Shabaab and in the absence of a legal framework to safeguard human rights-have been involved in multiple human rights violations, such as torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This approach generates anger, fear, and resentment in local communities and creates a pool of people who feel marginalized or alienated from the state, which al Shabaab uses to attract recruits. Many former fighters said anger and the potential to enact revenge for civilian casualties caused by the Somali National Army (SNA), the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), or international military operations were reasons to join the group-and al Shabaab has actively sought to recruit individuals injured or otherwise affected by these strikes. Poorly implemented CVE actions that ignore human rights have created power vacuums and conflict dynamics that have helped groups like al Shabaab to mobilize, gain recruits, and expand their influence. Likewise, military CVE operations, such as drone and air strikes, have killed civilians, including children and women, in areas where Somali forces were targeting the group. This fuels perceptions of collective punishment and discrimination.

These examples reflect how CVE measures can look in the absence of concrete actions to ensure the respect, protection, and promotion of human rights. All states should work to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat terrorist organizations without fueling grievances or compromising the lives, liberties, and property of innocent civilians. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from extremist attacks, but it is crucial to adopt an effective CVE approach that respects human rights and is credible, efficient, and sustainable in the fight against VE.

Human Rights-Centric Strategies for Effective CVE

States should ensure that CVE strategies and national action plans explicitly integrate human rights and the rule of law as central components. This includes revising training modules for security and law enforcement actors to integrate legal and ethical practices governing the use of force, arrest, detention, and engagement with civilians, particularly in CVE contexts. Moreover, within the state security architecture, for example, the police, military, and national CVE-related agencies should establish offices responsible for administering and monitoring the rule of law and respect for human rights in CVE efforts.

At the regional level, blocs such as the European Union, African Union, Southern African Development Community, and others should ensure that they have human rights frameworks that guide CVE response and that all member states are embedding human rights principles in security operations. They should also create room to share best practices among member states on what works, what does not, and why. This will be vital to developing CVE mechanisms that respect human rights and countering the use of human rights laws, measures, and rhetoric to justify committing human rights abuses in CVE responses.

At the global level, the United Nations should ensure that all member states' CVE measures comply with their obligations under international law, in particular, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international refugee law. Moreover, the United Nations adopted the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which reaffirms that promoting and protecting human rights for all, alongside upholding the rule of law, is essential to every component of the strategy. To ensure these principles are implemented; the United Nations should ensure the member states are embedding the principles from the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy into their CVE policies through funding, technical assistance, and by conditioning support on adherence to international human rights law. It can also strengthen monitoring, reporting, and accountability mechanisms for all member states regarding upholding human rights in CVE activities.

Conclusion

Security forces combating CVE have been credibly accused of overreach, such as torture and assassinations, while using a security-first approach that centers on arrest and military deployment. In at-risk countries, these efforts achieve temporary success but are not sustainable, as they rarely address drivers of violent extremism and can fuel greater resentment and grievance that drives greater VE. Respecting human rights is not an optional part of CVE but a critical component of its success and sustainability, as it strengthens security and trust and ultimately makes societies safer.

Edmund Mbigili is a Mandela Washington fellow alumnus and part of the Professional Development Experience Program with the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Programs & Projects