UN counter-terrorism strategy review set to test human rights commitments as Australia urges stronger gender focus

The United Nations’ flagship counter-terrorism blueprint is heading into a contentious ninth review, with human rights set to dominate the agenda and Australia among countries pressing for a stronger gender lens. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) is the foundation of the UN’s counter-terrorism architecture and is built around four pillars.

It calls for commitments to human rights, the rule of law, civil society engagement and gender sensitivity, positioning rights protections as fundamental to effective counter-terrorism.

As then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said at the GCTS launch, “Effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing ones.” Multiple UN entities support implementation of the strategy.

The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) focuses on building the UN’s capacity to assist member states and serves as secretariat to the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact, an agreement among more than 40 UN bodies to coordinate work across the strategy’s pillars.

To remain relevant, the GCTS is reviewed every two years. Over eight reviews, it has shifted from a state‑centric document to one that advocates a more holistic, preventive approach; integrated gender perspectives; expanded to include preventing violent extremism and tackling underlying factors; and addressed technology and online radicalisation.

Consensus, however, has grown harder to sustain. In June 2023, the eighth review exposed sharp divides over whether state security should take precedence over individual rights, with some states pushing more permissive approaches. Negotiations produced a strained consensus that delivered a technical rollover rather than substantive changes.

Australia had advocated for stronger frameworks for understanding the gender dimension of terrorism and expressed disappointment when such language was not adopted. India publicly criticised what it described as “narrow political agendas” among some member states and dissociated itself from the outcome.

The ninth review is expected to be equally, if not more, divisive. Observers anticipate renewed debates over the use of new technologies by terrorists and by states in ways that endanger human rights. With the GCTS marking its twentieth anniversary this year, supporters say the review is a chance to reaffirm that counter-terrorism measures must not erode the rights the strategy was designed to protect.