Explanation

The evaluation of counter-terrorism strategies reveals that they violate human rights and promote ideas of race, ethnicity, religion, nation, etc. negatively. Is it justifiable to put restrictions on human rights to counter-terrorism? Analyze with at least one valid argument.

Terrorism activities in the world have always affected how people live, peace, the economy, and livelihoods. Countries have been trying to take measures to limit terrorism but the measures sometimes have turned to hurt human beings in the world. It is not justifiable to put restrictions on human rights to counter-terrorism because; it is the most innocent citizens that normally suffer the most from this kind of restriction.

When restricting the rights to counter-terrorism, there is a likely hood that human beings in the terrorism-prone area will go without access to the basic need of food more importantly. With the restriction on various human rights, it becomes very hard for an individual to go look for a living to help in supporting the aspects of food, clothing, and shelter. Access to health facilities for medical attention becomes a huddle. This means that gains that have been made by a community economically may fallout in a very short while and a bid to counter-terrorism. This should not be the case. Livelihoods should not be lost in efforts to combat crimes.

Efforts by the international community have been put in place to guarantee that human rights are respected and the rule of law as the fundamental basis amidst all the efforts to combat crime by the adoption of the strategy United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism resolution 60/288 by the General Assembly. Members states agreed to ensure that measures are in place to prohibit the thriving of terrorism which can include having no rule of law in place, human rights violation and in a bid to counter terrorism the guidelines given in the international law should be followed to the latter these may include the humanitarian law, the law on refugees and human rights law.