Read more
In 2005 the UN Security Council adopts resolution which require member States to criminalize incitement to terrorism. In the absence of clear and comprehensive definition of the word 'terrorism', repeated calling of Security Council resolutions to criminalize incitement to terrorism allows unlimited margin of discretionary power to States to unilaterally and subjectively determine the scope of criminal liability of incitement to terrorism in domestic anti-terrorism laws. This leads to the potential for unintended human rights abuses and even the intentional misuse of the term terrorism to limit freedom of expression and other fundamental rights recognized in international human rights instruments. Besides situations where some States resort to the deliberate misuse of the term, there is also more frequent adoption in domestic anti- terrorism legislation of terminology that is too broad and not properly confined to the countering of terrorism. Restrictions have expanded from existing prohibitions on incitement to much broader and less defined areas such as 'glorification (apologie) for terrorism' or 'encouragement of terrorism'.
About the author
K.M.Aynalem is a Lecturer and researcher of International Human Rights Law and the Law of International Organizations at Jimma University School of law in Ethiopia.
