The global war on terrorism has in the past 20 years significantly transformed how international organizations relate with matters of national security. At no other place is this transformation more eminent than in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), whose state-led counter-terrorist approaches have had institutional success not only in Africa but also in the global context through the United Nations. Amidst governments in MENA taking on expanding influence in UN means of countering terror, the concern is heightened on how human rights motives are being traded to political domination and legal obscurity.
MENA states and their growing UN footprint
Expanding institutional influence and legal harmonization
Currently, MENA countries occupy high roles in most of the UN counter-terrorism frameworks. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are committing significant financial and programmatic resources to the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), while Egypt co-chairs the well-known Global Counter-Terrorism Forum (GCTF). These states not only get involved in the multilateral policy-making process, but they also contribute to the creation of model legislation and other vehicles of cooperation in the region, providing precedents both inside and outside the Arab League.
Partners of the UN have again and again referred to the 1998 Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism as one of the strongholds of the legal continuum to tie the regional systems with international enforcement strategies. MENA states have thus established themselves not only as those receiving the benefits of worldwide collaboration in security, but of designing the specter of rapidly changing security norms that is difficult to distinguish between legal methods of disengaging danger, and political oppression.
Declining violence and rising scrutiny
In MENA, deaths caused by terror have reduced drastically. The Global Terrorism Index has ranked the region as having an 87 percent decline of terrorism-related deaths between the years 2016 and 2025. The terrorism deaths in Algeria happened for the first time in decades. ISIS defeat has significantly minimized the attacks in Iraq and Syria. In statistics these represent a success story in the region.
Nevertheless, they mask greater problems that are associated with the way such outcomes were arrived at, via securitization of civil space and spread of authoritarian powers on the pretexts of counter-terrorism actions.
The expanding security-rights gap
Ambiguous laws and repressive enforcement
A major concern is the legal ambiguity embedded in many MENA counter-terror laws. Egypt’s 2015 Anti-Terrorism Law criminalizes vaguely defined offenses such as “harming national unity” or “obstructing public institutions,” leaving ample room for interpretation. These laws have been mirrored in several UN-backed frameworks without sufficient legal precision.
These definitions have been criticized many times by UN rapporteurs and other human rights institutions, because they criminalize dissent and non-confrontational activism. Following the 2003 bombings of Casablanca, Morocco accused more than 2,000 individuals of terrorism-related crimes–even under broad definitions. These are some of the illustrations of anti-terror laws becoming a tool of oppression instead of being a tool of justice.
The UN’s complicity and structural blind spots
The institutional dilemma lies in how UN counter-terror programs integrate MENA state policies without critical scrutiny.Although UNOCT purports to adhere to rights-based practices, the main interest in its operations is security effectiveness and not protection. The UN promoted an action plan against terrorism in the Arab region, which seems to be largely lacking the protection of rights in force, and independent controls.
Incorporating MENA priorities into the global counter-terror infrastructure, the UN exposes itself to the risk of promoting to normative the governance model which values control more than accountability.
Civic actors—including journalists and NGOs—are increasingly targeted under national frameworks that are effectively validated by UN cooperation.
Political control, legal shortcuts, and civic exclusion
Eroding civil space and due process
Civil society organizations face severe constraints in MENA countries leading UN strategies. Independent monitors are often denied access, and transparency mechanisms are rare. Public demonstrations, human rights advocacy, and independent journalism are routinely treated as potential threats under the broad umbrella of “violent extremism.” This creates a chilling effect not only domestically but across the international system.
Judicial processes have also been diluted. People who are seen as terrorists are normally political opponents and dissidents and they are fast-tracked through a legal process, jailed and held indefinitely or extradited to another country based on legally questionable reasons. Such activities are in violation of the due process norms of international law and growing hard to challenge when incorporated into the internationally accepted counter-terror frameworks.
Legal gaps and the erosion of procedural justice
UN mechanisms continue to lack meaningful accountability processes that would check abuses enabled by vague counter-terror laws. Once regional instruments with minimal protections are accepted at the UN level, legal redress becomes harder to secure.This harmonization of laws without any protection establishes a long-term regime that can have contraproductive effects to peace building and subsequent stability.
Any attempt to establish judicial protection or human rights review in UN programming encounters the opposition of the states of the MENA region, which view this as an abuse of sovereignty. Practically there is and has always remained a dual standard- where in theory rights are promised but avoided in practice.
Reform efforts and current challenges
2025 debates on accountability
As of mid-2025, growing criticism surrounds the UN’s counter-terrorism machinery. The civil society coalitions want the establishment of a third party mechanism to evaluate the human rights implications of any of all strategies that it approves before they are adopted. This would be a major change in structure bringing in review thresholds that may discourage abusive activities.
Support for such reforms is mixed.Some of the European member states support the initiative, although nagging but powerful UN donors in the Gulf still oppose the initiative. So far, UN Secretary-General Ant mountain Guterres has spoken with limited dispositions supporting greater disclosures, without ever challenging member states that lie at the heart of the UN fight against terror.
This person has spoken on the issue
This individual has written on the subject in a joint interview with Al Jazeera who has said:
“Unless MENA states find their way out of counter-terrorism as a means to ensconce power and block dissent, any UN plan that operates under its leadership will face a crisis of fundamental legitimacy.”
The latter traces through the words they offer the growing concern that the international security system as it is seems to exacerbate impunity, rather than put to rest extremism.
Head of the Iranian Mission to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani:
— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) August 12, 2024
"The United States is the main supporter and promoter of terrorism in the region" pic.twitter.com/fYfgBpEjVE
The road ahead: rebalancing rights and security
The case of MENA-led UN counter-terror strategies presents a global test: Can security and human rights coexist in an international order where regional power blocs increasingly shape norms without democratic or legal accountability? The challenge goes beyond implementation flaws; it strikes at the design and philosophy of the entire UN counter-terror regime.
Unless concrete steps are taken to reintroduce rights safeguards and empower civil society actors, the very idea of global counter-terrorism may come to be seen not as a protector of safety, but as a mechanism for permanent exceptionalism. The long-term legitimacy of the UN’s efforts will depend on its ability to impose binding standards that resist instrumentalization by authoritarian governments.
The next phase of this debate could determine whether future UN counter-terror frameworks embrace independent scrutiny—or continue to prioritize alliance-building at the expense of the most basic human freedoms. As global norms harden, the cost of failing to correct courses will only deepen.
