Abstract
Although there is no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, there is a broad consensus that incidents like the 9/11 attacks constitute criminal behaviour that significantly impacts fundamental human rights. This thesis focuses on post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts, particularly the United States-led Global War on Terror, and examines how global responses have influenced the balance between security and human rights. Since counterterrorism strategies are often identified as “war and criminal justice models,” this thesis examines how three democratic states respond to terrorism within these frameworks. The findings reveal that states respond differently, and their reactions are shaped by specific factors, such as their historical and political backgrounds, experiences, and individual perceptions of terrorist threats, which in turn impact the protection of human rights.
The first part of this thesis outlines the theoretical and legal frameworks surrounding terrorism, counterterrorism, and human rights. It also examines the ongoing tension between national security needs and civil liberties within the broader context of global human rights standards, especially in the realm of international counterterrorism. The second part presents a comparative analysis of case studies from Norway, Nigeria, and New Zealand, examining how democratic states respond to domestic terrorist attacks. It investigates the adoption of counterterrorism measures in these states and how their strategies correspond with the identified models.
A comparative analysis was conducted to explore the differences in conceptual approaches and the similarities and distinctions in domestic terrorist attacks across the three states, including their reactions and responses to these attacks. The findings show that the states’ response to international terrorist attacks, particularly 9/11, followed a war model, whereas their responses to domestic attacks differed. Consequently, Norway adopts a criminal justice model, Nigeria employs a war model, while New Zealand shifts between the two.
Finally, the results indicate that states’ reactions to domestic terrorist attacks are influenced by their histories, individuality, and experiences. The differences in how the three states perceive and manage terrorist threats can be understood through factors such as national threat perception, political culture, state capacity, security infrastructure, and societal values. These elements can either safeguard or threaten human rights. Most importantly, since there is no universal approach to counterterrorism due to differing threat landscapes and political and social contexts, adapting tactics and strategies, as demonstrated by these three states, suggests that responses prioritising human rights should be preferred.