Conceptualizing Punishment in Counterterrorism: How do International Counterterrorism Strategies Justify Applied Measures?
(2025) MRSM15 20251Human 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:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9211836
- author
- Tykkyläinen, Tuuli Alli Inari LU
- supervisor
-
- Olof Beckman LU
- organization
- course
- MRSM15 20251
- year
- 2025
- 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}}, }