- Prevention of the financing of terrorism, through, inter alia, freezing of the financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or who participate or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts;
- Establishment of terrorist acts as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations, with commensurably serious punishment; and
- Taking appropriate measures before granting refugee status to ensure that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated, or participated in the commission of terrorist acts. (“In the Name,” 2003)
On the European level the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy, aiming to “set out EU policy clearly and comprehensively for the general public” (“Anti-terrorism Policy” n.d., Issues, para. 1) enforces these measures. It is based on the 4P basis, i.e. to pursue, to prepare, to protect and to prevent:
1. To pursue and investigate terrorists across our borders and globally; to impede planning, travel, and communications; to disrupt support networks; to cut off funding and access to attack materials, and bring terrorists to justice;
2. To prepare ourselves, in the spirit of solidarity, to manage and minimise the consequences of a terrorist attack, by improving capabilities to deal with: the aftermath; the co-ordination of the response; and the needs of victims;
3. To protect citizens and infrastructure and reduce our vulnerability to attack, including through improved security of borders, transport and critical infrastructure;
4 To prevent people turning to terrorism by tackling the factors or root causes which can lead to radicalisation and recruitment, in Europe and internationally. (“The European Union,” 2005)
One another multilateral anti-terrorism legitimate instrument is the (1999), including the following combating measures:
1. Arresting perpetrators of terrorists crimes and prosecuting them according to the national law or extraditing them in accordance with the provisions of this Convention or existing Conventions between the requesting and requested States.
2. Ensuring effective protection of persons working in the field of criminal justice as well as to witnesses and investigators.
3. Ensuring effective protection of information sources and witnesses on terrorist crimes.
4. Extending necessary assistance to victims of terrorism.
5. Establishing effective cooperation between the concerned organs in the contracting States and the citizens for combating terrorism including extending appropriate guarantees and appropriate incentives to encourage informing on terrorist acts and submitting information to help uncover them and cooperating in arresting the perpetrators. (“Annex to Resolution” n.d., Combating measures)
However, despite the availability of the international anti-terror instruments, the President of International Crisis Group Gareth Evans claims, “the most visible product of the war on terrorism so far has been more war and more terrorism” (2005). Since the contemporary world is daily experiencing the acts of terror, no convention can guarantee us safety without taking radical counteractions. This conclusion is also proven by the US-oriented standpoint consisting in the fact that fighting terrorism is not possible on the declarative level: “There…will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough, when our very national security is challenged…when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens.” (Joshua, B., & Skladany, M. 2000) To this end, Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) experts are absolutely right, claiming “The mere documentation of anti-terrorist actions does little in terms of aiding enforcement, because the effectiveness of any international resolution depends on its implementation” (Palti, n.d.).
The straightforward example of an immediate action was the endorsement of Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism by the Member States of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) on 12 September 2001, which underscores that “EAPC States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism” (NATO, 2002). The principal objectives of the Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism are to:
- Reconfirm the determination of EAPC States to create an environment unfavorable to the development and expansion of terrorism, building on their shared democratic values, and to assist each other and others in this endeavour;
- Underscore the determination of EAPC States to act against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their willingness to co-operate in preventing and defending against terrorist attacks and dealing with their consequences;
- Provide interested Partners with increased opportunities for contributing to and supporting, consistent with the specific character of their security and defence policies, NATO's efforts in the fight against terrorism;
- Promote and facilitate co-operation among the EAPC States in the fight against terrorism, through political consultation, and practical programmes under EAPC and the Partnership for Peace;
- Upon request, provide assistance to EAPC States in dealing with the risks and consequences of terrorist attacks, including on their economic and other critical infrastructure. (NATO, 2002).
The war on terror, declared by George W. Bush after September 9/11 and widely supported right aftermath by international community, makes every country of the world stay alert and develop anti-terror measures in close cooperation with its counterparts. The abovementioned examples underscore that such measures cannot remain declarative for long as the threat is just around the corner. Therefore, firm multilateral actions are much needed to pursue and prevent the causes of global terrorism.
Council of the European Union (2005). The European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
EurActiv (n.d.). Anti-terrorism Policy, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
Evans, G. (2005). Responding to Terrorism: A Global Stocktake. Speech to Calouste Gulbenkian Conference on Terrorism and International Relations, Lisbon, 25 October 2005, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3767&l=1
Human Rights Watch (2003). “In the Name of Counter-Terrorism: Human Rights Abuses Worldwide,” Briefing Paper for the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
Joshua, B., & Skladany, M. (2000). Excerpts from “The Capabilities and Limits of the United Nations in Fighting Terrorism,” Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=405625
NATO (2002). Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
Palti, L. (n.d.). Combating Terrorism While Protecting Human Rights, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
Unknown (n.d.). Annex to Resolution No: 59/26-P Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
Unknown (n.d.). Foreign Policy: Fight against terrorism Combating terrorism, Retrieved March 20, 2006, from