Abstract
On the basis of the case studies of deprivation of nationality and the non-repatriation and possible prosecution of foreign fighters and their families, this article will argue that some counter-terrorism measures, adopted under the justification of protecting national security, will not make these countries, and thus also the individuals under its jurisdiction, safer. Hence, it is wondered whether the notion of national security is both spatially and temporally still in sync with the hyperconnected world in which we live and in which terrorists operate—and whether it is not better to move to the adoption of the broader concept of sustainable security. This article will then turn to the question of whether ordinary citizens (or NGOs litigating on their behalf) could use their existing right to security of person to block those inefficient measures and if not, whether they should be able to operationalise the concept of sustainable security in the human rights context. The article will assert that while the general concept of sustainable security can certainly help at the policy level in encouraging governments to move away from mere national security thinking and thus assist in adopting counter-terrorism measures that provide true, durable security, the situation is different at the level of human rights. The existing right to security of person arguably does not go that far to be able to block the inefficient counter-terrorism measures as discussed in this article and an extension of this right, to a right to sustainable security of person, should not be pursued.
Targeted Killings
