UN Expert Warns Against Abuse of Counter-Terrorism Measures Undermining Rights

“Administrative measures, from security detention to listing individuals and groups as ‘terrorist’, are proliferating globally,” Saul warned.

A senior United Nations human rights expert has raised alarm over the growing global misuse of administrative counter-terrorism measures, calling on governments to urgently halt the trend of using these tools to suppress civil society, silence political dissent, and erode fundamental rights.

Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, presented his latest report to the UN General Assembly, condemning the proliferation of administrative practices that often bypass basic legal safeguards. These include preventive detention, restrictions on movement, and the designation of individuals and organizations as “terrorist” with limited or no access to fair judicial review.

“Administrative measures, from security detention to listing individuals and groups as ‘terrorist’, are proliferating globally,” Saul warned. “They profoundly affect many human rights and often have fewer due process and judicial protections than under the criminal law.”

Administrative Measures: A Threat in Disguise

Unlike criminal procedures—which require rigorous evidence standards, transparent processes, and independent courts—administrative counter-terrorism tools often operate in legal grey zones. This has made them a preferred option for governments—democratic and authoritarian alike—when silencing opposition voices, controlling dissent, or targeting vulnerable populations.

Such measures are typically shrouded in secrecy, applied with minimal oversight, and can be based on vague or flawed definitions of terrorism. Saul’s report highlights four of the most commonly misused administrative tools:

1. Restrictive Orders – These include travel bans, communication monitoring, and bans on public association or protest.

2. Terrorist Listings – The arbitrary designation of individuals or organizations as “terrorists,” allowing for asset freezes and criminal penalties without trial.

3. Administrative Security Detention – Detaining individuals without criminal charges based on perceived risk rather than proven conduct.

4. Compulsory Preventive Interventions – Programs aimed at “reforming” individuals through surveillance, forced counselling, or ideological re-education.

A High Risk of Abuse and Human Rights Violations

Saul emphasized that administrative measures should only be used as a last resort, when strictly necessary to prevent terrorism, and must be grounded in clear, legal definitions that comply with international law.

“Without essential safeguards, they are ripe for abuse in democratic and authoritarian States alike. Their abuse also counter-productively undermines national security by fuelling grievances and alienation.”

Among the most serious concerns raised was the potential for arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture, and even extrajudicial killing, especially in conflict or emergency contexts. Administrative security detention, in particular, was identified as a gateway to serious human rights violations when not subjected to strict judicial control.

Saul further pointed out recent cases in armed conflicts where administrative detention has been weaponized, leading to widespread abuses including inhumane treatment of detainees.

Safeguards, Transparency, and Legal Oversight Urgently Needed

To combat misuse, the report recommends a set of best practices and minimum safeguards. These include:

• Time-limited application of administrative measures.

• Clear legal definitions of terrorism that align with international norms.

• Transparent criteria for implementing restrictive orders or listing designations.

• Full disclosure of evidence to affected individuals.

• Independent and accessible judicial review mechanisms.

• Effective legal remedies and compensation for violations of rights.

Importantly, Saul emphasized that administrative measures must not be used to bypass criminal prosecution, which offers more robust protections. In many instances, he noted, governments exploit administrative tools to avoid the procedural burdens of a fair trial.

“Administrative measures should not normally substitute for criminal prosecution where feasible or be misused to circumvent the stronger protections of criminal trials.”

Protecting the Most Vulnerable

The Special Rapporteur also raised concern over the disproportionate impact these measures have on vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities, individuals with mental health conditions, children, victims of terrorism, and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

Children, in particular, should only be subjected to administrative counter-terrorism measures in truly exceptional circumstances, given their special status under international human rights and humanitarian law.

Saul criticized the growing reliance on risk assessment tools, especially those driven by artificial intelligence, as often flawed and biased. These tools can amplify existing systemic discrimination, especially when trained on skewed data or deployed without transparency.

A Path Toward Reform

As governments continue to expand their security policies in response to evolving threats, the UN expert stressed that counter-terrorism must not come at the expense of human dignity, freedom, and justice.

“The misuse of administrative counter-terrorism measures is not only a human rights issue—it is a security issue. When people are wrongfully detained, silenced, or targeted, it undermines the very security these policies claim to protect.”

Saul reiterated his commitment to support governments with technical assistance to help align their national laws and practices with international human rights standards. He urged states to engage transparently with affected communities, civil society actors, and oversight bodies to build trust and accountability.

His report is both a warning and a roadmap: a call to end the normalization of administrative repression under the guise of national security, and a plea to return to rights-based governance grounded in the rule of law.