Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Conceptualizing Punishment in Counterterrorism: How do International Counterterrorism Strategies Justify Applied Measures?

Tykkyläinen, Tuuli Alli Inari LU (2025) MRSM15 20251
Human Rights Studies
Abstract
This study discusses the conceptualization of punishment, human rights, and the justification of applied measures in international counterterrorism strategies. Through Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) a mixed theory of punishment, discussed by philosophers such as John Rawls, H. L. A. Hart, and Matthew Altman, is applied to UN and EU counterterrorism strategies to analyze the normative justifications given for the application of counterterrorism measures. The documents under analysis are Resolution 60/288: The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) and the EU Strategy titled “A Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU: Anticipate, Prevent, Protect, Respond”. The analysis shows that the strategies do not directly... (More)
This study discusses the conceptualization of punishment, human rights, and the justification of applied measures in international counterterrorism strategies. Through Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) a mixed theory of punishment, discussed by philosophers such as John Rawls, H. L. A. Hart, and Matthew Altman, is applied to UN and EU counterterrorism strategies to analyze the normative justifications given for the application of counterterrorism measures. The documents under analysis are Resolution 60/288: The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) and the EU Strategy titled “A Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU: Anticipate, Prevent, Protect, Respond”. The analysis shows that the strategies do not directly conceptualize punishment even though they include measures that are de facto punitive or show punitive potential. The UN strategy showcases a more direct mixed approach, but through vague argumentation and lack of direct descriptions of accountability structures, it leans more on consequentialist justifications. The EU Agenda relies on pre-emptive measures and consequentialist justifications. This thesis concludes that through direct conceptualization of the de facto punitive potential of applied counterterrorism measures, human rights could be more centered in policy. This thesis reveals that a common critique of ‘thin’ mixing towards some mixed theories of punishment is apparent also in the counterterrorism context. However, the importance of applying a balance of both justifications may help solve the dilemma of balancing security and fundamental rights in counterterrorism. This thesis breaches a gap in academic discourse by introducing the mixed conception in the counterterrorism context, an approach arguably worthy of further academic exploration. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Tykkyläinen, Tuuli Alli Inari LU
supervisor
organization
course
MRSM15 20251
year
type
H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
subject
keywords
Theory of punishment, counterterrorism, human rights, United Nations, European Union, utilitarianism, retribution, rule of law, justification of punishment
language
English
id
9211836
date added to LUP
2025-09-15 11:15:27
date last changed
2025-09-15 11:15:27
@misc{9211836,
  abstract     = {{This study discusses the conceptualization of punishment, human rights, and the justification of applied measures in international counterterrorism strategies. Through Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) a mixed theory of punishment, discussed by philosophers such as John Rawls, H. L. A. Hart, and Matthew Altman, is applied to UN and EU counterterrorism strategies to analyze the normative justifications given for the application of counterterrorism measures. The documents under analysis are Resolution 60/288: The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) and the EU Strategy titled “A Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU: Anticipate, Prevent, Protect, Respond”. The analysis shows that the strategies do not directly conceptualize punishment even though they include measures that are de facto punitive or show punitive potential. The UN strategy showcases a more direct mixed approach, but through vague argumentation and lack of direct descriptions of accountability structures, it leans more on consequentialist justifications. The EU Agenda relies on pre-emptive measures and consequentialist justifications. This thesis concludes that through direct conceptualization of the de facto punitive potential of applied counterterrorism measures, human rights could be more centered in policy. This thesis reveals that a common critique of ‘thin’ mixing towards some mixed theories of punishment is apparent also in the counterterrorism context. However, the importance of applying a balance of both justifications may help solve the dilemma of balancing security and fundamental rights in counterterrorism. This thesis breaches a gap in academic discourse by introducing the mixed conception in the counterterrorism context, an approach arguably worthy of further academic exploration.}},
  author       = {{Tykkyläinen, Tuuli Alli Inari}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Conceptualizing Punishment in Counterterrorism: How do International Counterterrorism Strategies Justify Applied Measures?}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}