"The Brussels Court of Appeals ruled that the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) should not be classified as a terrorist organization. The judiciary is an independent body from the executive branch." SEPARATION OF POWERS is crucial. Their functions, duties, decisions, and responsibilities should not overlap. The Court's finding is legitimate in line with European and International Law. It may be a target of criticisms, alleged accusation of favouritism but there is no breach of EU or int law. "The ruling claimed that EU anti-terrorism legislation cannot be applied towards the PKK as it is involved in a non-international armed conflict or civil war and is thus allowed to use legitimate military force." According to International Law, only the legal bodies operating in Turkey or the organisations where Turkey is a Member State can intervene in the conflict. Therefore, as it is a non-international, civil war, the EU has no discretion to take action or apply EU law. "The PKK is an internationally designated terrorist organization. Although it is uncertain if the ruling will create diplomatic altercations with Turkey, the Belgian government depends on stable relations with Ankara to track Belgian nationals who joined ISIS in Syria." The relationship between governments has NOTHING to do with judicial decisions. Separate the Law from the Politics here, though it may seem contradictory. Governments may recognise PKK as a terrorist org and that is likely to affect diplomatic relations (especially between Belgium and Turkey), but the Court's ruling should be INDEPENDENT of any political convenience. The Courts serve the Law and should only interfere with legal aspects and legal issues. Whether or not good political BG-TK relations are desirable, that is for governments, politicians, and diplomats to deal with, NOT THE JUDICIARY.

PART II Article 44 says that "each Member State should consider developing a national plan of action to prevent violent extremism which sets national priorities for addressing the local drivers of violent extremism." One suggests that this aim will not only strengthen cooperation between the States but also empower each State to take sovereign, calculated, specific, locally-based action. Being "multidisciplinary", involving government and non-governmental actors reveals that national plans will adopt a more holistic and comprehensive approach towards violent extremism. This is a positive aspect since it expands action to other fields, areas, target audiences... I underline the importance of "promoting respect for the principle of equality before the law and equal protection under the law" since this helps to ensure that civilians are protected from possible anomalous measures drafted by governments. From an International Law lens, it is fundamental that these national plans "provide the legislative foundation (...) consistent with their national, international obligations" since no national law or rule should breach international binding legislation. These national plans should meet the SDGs in particular goal 16: "promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels." Policy monitoring is also encouraged and absolutely necessary to check whether or not these are in line with International Law. Dialogue is key to conflict resolution, fostering peaceful relations between the States, then, safeguarding global security. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre, Task Force working groups, and regional youth engagement skills development programmes sound like outstanding initiatives and projects towards the urgency of tackling violent extremism. I would like to FOCUS on (a) "ensure that, in circumstances where military action becomes necessary to counter the expansion of violent extremist groups, any such response is in full compliance with international law, in particular with the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law" and on (d) "explore opportunities to introduce alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, arbitration and restorative justice, to resolve conflict and achieve sustainable peace." All States' actions MUST be in accordance with the UN Charter, IHRL, IRL, and IHL. No violation of such a set of internationally recognised legal rules and policies should be tolerated. Heavy sanctions on the States violating International Law should be put in place. Before advancing with military proceedings, diplomatic relations and dispute resolution techniques must be explored to their fullest. Securing PEACE is the ultimate goal.

@Veronika Goncharova Agree!

@Collin Gawron Couldn't say it any better, Collin! Thanks.

@Clara Calavia Sarnago Exactly!

@Eli Rush Sure! Their experience and wisdom are of critical importance. Thanks for raising this.

Article 1 says it all! "It (violent extremism) undermines peace and security, human rights and sustainable development." Extremism and terrorism have no labels attached. Everyone can be an easy target. Intolerance must not be tolerated! The UN and International Law bodies are doing all efforts to safeguard peace and security worldwide through peacekeeping operations, counterterrorism strategies, binding legislation... The "shared values of peace, justice, and human dignity" must be a priority of all States and Nations. Humanitarian crises and forced migration are indeed products of these extreme forms of violence. Terrorism has no flag, colour, religion, language... Hatred leaves its footprint on human lives: trauma, PTSD, anxiety, depression, other grievous mental health issues. The "security-based counter-terrorism measures" have proved not to be enough. The UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy aims at "(d) ensuring respect for human rights for all and the rule of law while countering terrorism." In my opinion, this is the key pillar of the whole strategy. It has been forgotten in the midst of the measures mentioned above. I highlight the urgent need for "the creation of open, equitable, inclusive, and pluralist societies, based on the full respect of human rights and with economic opportunities for all." This is the mindset that will better answer to terrorism. This should be the goal of all Governments and citizens throughout the globe. Indeed, YOUTH "must be empowered to make a constructive contribution to the political and economic development of their societies and nations" since the future, next generations will inherit the universal values that the UN stands for and will, hence, reach their full and highest potential.

Very interesting point raised here!

Hi Jonathan! Great post. Environmental rights are human rights as well! Counterterrorism is as essential to protect human lives as environmental policies. International Law seeks to balance these two priorities. Cheers.

Climate justice is necessarily linked to civil, social and criminal justice. Under International Law, climate action and carbon neutrality must be part of the countries' agendas and the targets must be efficiently considered in order to address the issues threatening human rights throughout the world. The amount of displaced people victims of climate change and natural disasters is sharply increasing. The climate migrants must not be forgotten in the midst of political and economic aspirations. The US leaders should be focusing on long-term solutions to the catastrophe destroying many thousands of lives. Yet, short-term action plans are also needed to respond to urgent calls. The environment must be prioritised. Human survival is at stake.

@Eli Rush Thank you for raising this point. There is an endless discussion between protectionism and other views on how the economy should be organised. Thank you for sharing yours, Eli!

@Veronika Goncharova I agree.

Well said.

The key aim is to generate a variety of options, solutions and opportunities to the main challenges threatening human rights, civil liberties, democratic values and the rule of law. From an International Law specialist perspective, the mentioned "crisis of racial justice", the "rising nationalism" and the "receding democracy" are by-products of the increasing influence of extremist schools of thought and expanding authoritarianism throughout the world. To what extent can the International Law ensure the protection of fundamental human rights, global peace and national security? The notion of "national security" has never been as questioned as nowadays. When saying that "our role in the world depends upon our strength and vitality here at home", it is argued that the American impact in the international arena will essentially reflect how stable, strong and consistent national defence mechanisms are. The outer strength mirrors the inner strength. The diversity in the US, the civil society and the democratic values are of critical importance to guarantee the State's powerful position towards the international community. Clearly, creative thinking plays a vital role here. America cannot answer to new issues using old approaches. Innovation is key. Democracy may not be perfect, but is definitely the most appropriate system and the strongest foundation of the XXI century's society. I would add Democracy to the three D's i.e. Diplomacy, Defence, Development. The Strategy emphasises vital values as resilience and a series of objectives. One of these is to "protect the security of the American people." Yet, no specific procedures are explained, action to be taken is mentioned in broad terms. Plus, "realising and defending the democratic values at the heart of the American way of life" is another target of this Strategy. This is essential under the International Law to safeguard the respect for human dignity and for peaceful relations. National security benefits from a democratic system. However, deep internal changes are required in order to provide a leading example to other nations. Regarding the "alliances and partnerships around the world", the Strategy poses a heavy weight on international cooperation which is, arguably, the most important aspect for a powerful national and international security frameworks. The "democratic alliances" such as NATO should incentivise action against States violating human rights and breaching the International Law while encouraging mutual understanding, win-win negotiations. The partnerships with the EU, the UK, the ASEAN and Americas, for example, can bring seriousness to the supremacy of International Law as a body of internationally recognised rules defending the human dignity, peace and security worldwide. By fostering these long-term relationships, America would be showing willingness and demonstrating commitment to collaboration towards the common benefit and based upon respect. The Strategy highlights the humanitarian aid and assistance available to partner countries, especially those suffering the most with the current pandemic. This must be carefully considered, put into practice gradually and equitably for a fair transition to recovery and growth.