HE Zhipeng*

 

Abstract: Through investigation and analysis of the counterterrorism operations carried out both at home and abroad, we can draw some initial conclusions on their effectiveness. By its very nature, counterterrorism should be recognized as an integral part of human rights rather than a legal or political mechanism apart from human rights. The serious conflict between the counterterrorism measures and other human rights protection measures results from the scarcity of resources, to which different countries and international community should pay serious attention. Counterterrorism measures should both advance with the times and fully leverage modern technological means. The development idea of a community with a shared future for human beings helps us identify the development direction and fundamental principles of the counterterrorism system.

 

Keywords: counterterrorism   human rights   rule of law terrorism

 

Terrorism even within borders often has a wide and catastrophic impact upon the international community at large;¹ preventing, curbing and eradicating terrorism is thus a key field for the integration of national and global governance. Since the start of the 21st century, the extensive measures taken to fight against terrorism have been a focal point on the political and legal fronts.² But there have emerged a range of new problems with regard to both international and national laws during the process of preventing and controlling terrorism, which bring about new issues and challenges for both individual countries and the international community in terms of political decision-making and legal systems. With this, legal issues concerning terrorism naturally constitute one of the major areas in which national and international law-based governance coordinate and interact with each other. The severe issues both the international community and individual countries meet with in dealing with terrorist events have compelled us to reflect on our response to terrorism on the theoretical front; we shall also summarize and analyze a whole raft of political and legal measures and rich experiences which have adopted and accumulated respectively by international organizations and their member states from the perspective of theory.

 

 

Counterterrorism operations, by their very nature, should be recognized as an integral part of human rights protection. Both theoretical cognition and practical exploration conducted to date is inclined to equate counterterrorism operations with human rights protection measures, including how terrorism hampers human rights,³ how the counterterrorism operations effectively protect basic human rights,⁴ how to prevent the counterterrorism operations from inappropriately affecting and even jeopardizing human rights,⁵ and how to balance the relationship between human rights and counterterrorism.⁶ Some scholars claim that contrary to terrorism, which seriously infringes upon human rights, fighting against terrorism and protecting human rights complement each other.⁷ However, improper counterterrorism operations may not only infringe upon human rights but also exert an adverse impact upon international counterterrorism campaign.⁸ Although such a claim equating counterterrorism with human rights helps us better clarify our problems and improve our practice, it is unconsciously prone to contradicting counterterrorism operations and human rights and analyze potential issues from a contradictory perspective rather than design counter-measures from a holistic perspective.

 

As for this claim, the author thinks that we should seek to forge an inclusive and integrated framework for human rights, and counterterrorism based on both existing theoretical cognition and practical exploration, so as to provide a whole new perspective on the relationship between human rights and counterterrorism and a new conceptual framework for coordinating human rights protection measures, including the counterterrorism operations. Such a point of view originates from the dualist transition from the dualism of subject and object to that of subject with objectivity and object with subjectivity, which represents a significant contribution made by the sociologist named Anthony Giddens.⁹ The dualism of subject and object gives us a way to analyze the relations between social actors from the perspective of interdependence and complementarity and makes us attach great importance to the significance of both communicative action and consultative democracy, whose implications in terms of worldview and methodology are extraordinarily inspiring.

 

As with the relations between human rights and counterterrorism, we shall come up with such logical reasoning: terrorists and terrorist organizations definitely neglect, despise and disregard human rights from the perspective of idea and thinking; more importantly, their terrorist activities constitute criminal offences.¹⁰ Generally, terrorists make excuses for their terrorist activities, whatever situations they confront and excuses they make, terrorist activities violate the most fundamental international code of conduct and ethics. In other words, terrorist activities severely impair the general public due to the unpredictable aggressive behavior and indiscriminate armed attacks, resulting in immense human rights disasters. With this, all the rational excuses for terrorist activities will be unanimously overturned. When we fully recognize that terrorist activities are against human rights, it is easier for us to reach such a consensus: Coun-terterrorism operations strive to prevent, combat and curb the adverse impacts upon human rights exerted by terrorist activities. So counterterrorism operations serve as measures to protect human rights, and the system of counterterrorism operations is an integral part of the human rights action plan and a way to protect human rights. Counterterrorism lives inside the human rights system rather than outside of it.¹¹ Instead of acting as a makeshift means isolated from human rights, counterterrorism operations become an important and integral part of the human rights system. The counterterrorism campaigns or other forms of counterterrorism operations and can be identified as a series of measures within the human rights framework, an effective means to protect and implement human rights rather than a unique political or legal system isolated from human rights.¹² In this way, counterterrorism can be incorporated into the conceptual system, ideological structure, theoretical pattern and practical arrangement of human rights, equating to poverty alleviation measures, judicial fairness, promoting accessibility facilities, maintaining public order and enhancing integrated social governance in respecting and protecting human rights. Provided that the international community unanimously recognizes terrorism as an illegal and criminal activity infringing on human rights, endangering national security and social order, all the plans and actions to prevent and combat terrorism, curb the incorporation and development of terrorist organizations, eliminate the sources of extremist information, cutting off the supply channels of material resources and cracking down on terrorists serve as indispensable measures in improving the people’s sense of fulfillment and protecting human rights.

 

 

We must face up to the conflict between counterterrorism operations and other human rights protection measures. With counterterrorism operations recognized as an integral part of a regulatory and action system for improving and protecting human rights, we should focus on the structural relationship between counterterrorism operations and other human rights protection measures rather than how to balance the conflict between counterterrorism and human rights. We should properly treat the social actors of other fields and human rights of multiple tiers while implementing counter-terrorism operations. We should take into account diversified human rights elements while designing steps and making arrangements for counterterrorism operations. Counterterrorism will become an integral part of the human rights system and an important field in protecting human rights instead of contradicting and evading human rights.

 

Countless historical experiences indicate that human rights, even the basic human rights, face diverse conflicts. Su Li takes a lead in interpreting the philosophy of conflict of rights and highlighting the importance of freedom of speech while analyzing and reviewing two legal cases of China.¹³ A text translated by Han Dayuan also refers to this issue.¹⁴ From the perspective of the train of thought, Guan Jinhua insists that the restriction mechanism shall be adopted to balance the conflict of rights and take protecting the vulnerable as a priority, which shall not be taken as an effective means to settle disputes.15 Since then, Chinese scholars have embarked on an extensive research into the philosophy of conflict of rights.¹⁶ Liu Zuoxiang, for example, declares that with China continuously pushing forward its law-based governance initiative, the conflict of rights has increasingly become a common legal phenomenon existing in every step of China’s law-based governance.¹⁷ In contrast, Hao Tiechuan states the conflict of rights is a pseudo-question because the respective boundaries of rights have been clarified with legislation, judicial interpretations, legal principles, public order and good morals; and a conflict of rights will not take place with the respective boundaries of rights stringently defended.¹⁸ His statement makes sense but is nevertheless impracticable. In reality, we meet with the conflict of rights at first, and then have to face up to the situation of how to confront and deal with the conflict. It is to overstate the legal functions by saying that a sound legal operating mechanism will help evade the conflicts of rights. As for the reason there are conflicts of rights, Ma Ling asserts it turns out to be a self-conflict of human nature resulting from basic human demands;¹⁹ Xu Zhendong claims the conflict of basic rights is equivalent to that of private rights;²⁰ Zhang Pinghua advocates that a conflict of rights refers to such a situation where two or more than two subjects contradict each other in terms of rights because of ambiguous or overlapping boundaries of rights, or the behavior a subject infringes on the rights of others.²¹ On how to deal with a conflict of rights, many have started off from the perspective of ranking rights²². For example, some think we should, in dealing with a conflict of rights, adhere to such principles that public rights take precedence over private rights and give priority to public interests;²³ some point out that any ranking of rights involves complex value judgments, so such a perspective should not be taken as an applicable basis for dealing with a conflict of rights, and different disputes should be settled on a case-by-case basis.²⁴ Zhang Xiang classifies the theories on dealing with the conflict of basic rights put forward by the academic community as the rank and sequence of basic rights, the priority of specific provisions over general provisions, the principle of proportionality, interest balancing of individual cases, legislative measurement and states the following steps should be followed: (1) priority application of general laws and regulations; (2) interest balancing of individual cases and constitutionalist interpretation; (3) unconstitutional review and judicial interpretation.²⁵

 

The author believes conflicts of rights represent an inevitable outcome resulting from the scarcity of social resources and inherent tension of human natural attributes, and the abstraction and hysteresis of institutions is a human factor for conflicts of rights. Although conflicts of rights cannot be solved once and for all, they can be effectively mitigated by increasing available resources, improving current institutions and implementation procedures, promoting moral cultivation and extending social communication channels.²⁶ All societies are confronted with the issue of the scarcity of resources, so any form of human rights and related protection measures cannot be perfect. Only with the balance and coordination of rights can we forge a well-planned society.

 

As an integral part of the human rights protection measures, requirements and measures of counterterrorism may conflict with other parts of human rights protection. Terrorism is a global problem confronting both individual countries and the global public. The reason why it is difficult to solve social problems is because there is no solution to fully protect all the interests and meet all the demands of different people, and no one-size-fits-all approach to satisfy reviewers, observers and commentators. So the key to solve such a problem is to rank the sequence of values in an appropriate manner.²⁷ When making clear the guiding thought, solution and implementation plan, we should make greater efforts to safeguard relevant interests; when designing and implementing specific measures, we should take into account different factors and balance them. We must take timely and effective measures to fight against extreme terrorist activities. But such measures may cause inconvenience to criminal suspects and prevent them from exercising other private rights. This is a time when we shall consider whether such measures are appropriate. The unstructured and ineffective measures will expose social order and public security to terrorist threats; but the stringent measures will implicate and even crack down on criminal suspects having no terrorist idea and intention. The author advocates we can identify decision-makers’ original aspirations and the principles they follow are appropriate with such basic principles upheld:

 

First, maintaining the psychological states of being upright, honest and trust-worthy when serving both the whole society and the general public. Government acts as the principal participant in confronting terrorism threats. As long as the government agencies like the legislative bodies, law enforcement departments and armed forces can serve the interests of the people and lay a solid foundation for a better social order, we shall understand and support the measures they have taken, whether such measures are effective and efficient or not.²⁸ On the contrary, if the government agencies indulge in pursuing their benefits, we shall stay alert to and reflect on the measures they have taken, however they whitewash such measures. So in order to prevent and combat terrorism, different countries and the international community shall adopt a range of counterterrorism operations and actions on the premise of taking into account the implementation costs and social benefits of diverse human rights, otherwise another form of terrorism may arise. As for effectively restricting counterterrorism operations, we must balance their relationship with the other human rights protection measures, especially the rights to fair trial and nondiscrimination.²⁹ In addition, such operations shall be adopted within the legal framework rather than on the premise of crossing legal boundaries or overlooking legal principles and spirits.³⁰ It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive assessment based on the overarching objective of social development; only in this way can we forge a relatively balanced human rights protection system.

 

Second, we must foster a unified global standard for both terrorism and terrorists in order to effectively and efficiently crack down on terrorism. What we should accept is a sole standard rather than two and even more than two standards. Divergent standards may result in contradictions and conflicts between different countries; in other words, some countries may be identified as a terrorist organization or some individual criminals suspects to be shielded and protected. With this, it is impossible for us to achieve the goal of combating terrorism. If the standard of human rights protection allows different civilizations to present different perceptions and understandings,³¹ the standard of terrorism shall be unified and consistent; otherwise, it will prevent the international community from combating terrorism and safeguarding human rights in all aspects.

 

Third, the unified standard of terrorism shall be closely linked with such a fact that different countries must reach a consensus on combating terrorism and maintaining social stability and social order and conduct practical cooperation. If some country identifies and shields a terrorist that another country intends to arrest and make stand trial as a political offender, and the country refuses to hand over the political offender based on the principle of political offense exception and allows him to live and engage in some activities within its borders; then it is impossible for international community to effectively prevent and combat terrorism. The UN Security Council has achieved initial success in coordinating global efforts to crack down on terrorism such as prohibiting the free flow of terrorists’ capital among different countries, blocking terrorists’ accounts, conducting cooperation in regulating the conventional weapons trade. On the contrary, if the international community cannot reach a consensus and conduct practical cooperation in these fields, then potential terrorist threats will exist and hide in each and every corner of international relations for a long time.

 

 

We must take into account the space-time conditions while implementing coun-terterrorism operations. Human rights cannot be protected blindly without considering social conditions; nor can the public and government agencies relax their vigilance against terrorist organizations and activities and take measures at will.³² So when confronting today’s terrorist threats, we must pay close attention to the actual social conditions of informatization and globalization and anticipate the new forms of contemporary terrorist activities and potential threats rather than identify terrorist activities from geographical, historical, political and cultural perspectives as before. We confront and guard against potential risks and challenges arising from terrorism by standing at the frontiers of thought and knowledge and science and technology. Technology can be leveraged either by us to improve and protect human rights and benefit people or by criminal suspects to bring about terrorist threats and even engender social chaos and tragedy. In confronting terrorism, the abuse of advanced technology prob-ably gives rise to diversified issues. For example, terrorists may trigger greater social risks than expected after having access to raw materials, technology or equipment for chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the internet makes it easier for terrorists to transmit extreme ideas or contact information, triggering severe social issues.³³ In light of the development direction of contemporary international society, we shall appropriately utilize technological means and regulate the new hi-tech sectors in a prudential manner and focus on safeguarding cyberspace sovereignty, maintaining cyberspace stability, and preventing the internet from becoming a hotbed for terrorism. Such measures are the key to raise the overall level of human rights protection and prohibit terrorism from developing on the network and endangering the whole society.

 

Only by staying ahead of the times can we strive to take preventive measures and keep the people away from terrorism rather than being misguided and depraved by terrorism.³⁴ We will otherwise have to face such alarming situation of terrorism having not been fully combated, social risks effectively mitigated and social stability guaranteed; the general public even help and support terrorist activities without distinguishing right from wrong. Under the premise of sufficient information, we should make greater efforts to evaluate and formulate preventive and regulatory measures.

 

 

The development idea of a community with a shared future for human beings presents both a great longing for a bright future and a rational understanding of risks and uncertainties. Terrorism represents one of such severe risks. While identifying legal norms and actions against terrorism, we must uphold and take a firm stand in carrying out the development idea of a community with a shared future for human beings.³⁵ Just like the climate change, environmental protection and nuclear nonprolif-eration, terrorism is a factor with global effects. In terms of prevailing circumstances similar to terrorism, we get a sense of life and death and realize the necessity of sharing weal and woe, and better understand we, all of us, have a shared destiny, future, risk and challenge. In the face of terrorism, we are all at risk with no one left alone as bystanders.³⁶ Such a circumstance urges different countries and peoples to take counterterrorism as an integral part of their life and work.

 

Just like the human rights protection measures in other fields, such political measures and legal means, counterterrorism operations should not be confined to dealing with the pressing issues we face at present and leave political, economic, social and cultural elements alone. Different governments and international organizations or conferences must both make a long term plan and focus on social stability and harmony.³⁷ Instead of being an accidental phenomenon, the emergence of terrorism is rooted in extensive political, economic, social and cultural factors.³⁸ So the key to combat terrorism is to implement an integrated social project and to protect, improve and guarantee human rights on the premise of benefiting the whole society, making more people enjoy a satisfactory and more desirable life style. With this, we will prohibit extreme ideas from being transmitted among the general public.³⁹ From the perspective of social statistics, the incidents of violence are indeed unpredictable and inevitable, but the massive and extensive extreme and violent ideas can be mitigated through conducting social work. Based on human nature of drawing on advantages and avoiding disadvantages, most people prefer leading a peaceful life to engaging in terrorist activities, which put both themselves and their society at risk. So the root cause to eliminate terrorism lies in extensive and profound empowerment, which can be classified into: on the political front, empowering the people from all walks of life to express their points of view, especially having the right to know and a chance to express their views on major decisions with extensive social effect; on the economic front, facilitating relatively balanced and fair development and preventing the gaps between rich and poor from further widening and making more people enjoy basic living standards and have a brighter future to pursue; on the cultural front, providing richer cultural resources for the public to prevent them from indulging in some extreme ideas because of lacking basic cultural information; on the social front, urging the people to focus more on the others’ interests rather than put all their eggs in one basket while thinking about what to do by incorporating a multifaceted exchange network. China has accumulated 10 years of rich and successful experience in implementing de-radicalization measures in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region.⁴⁰ With social order maintained and people’s well-being guaranteed, everybody has a sense of stability by better anticipating both social stability and individual action; with this, terrorism has been effectively combated. Under the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Central People’s Government, the People’s Government of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region empowers people to identify themselves on the political front, pursue brighter economic prospects, share rich and diversified cultural resources and care about each other on the social front by adopting a whole raft of integrated de-radicalization means, thus forging a healthy and sustainable social environment and greatly reducing the possibility of the emergence and development of terrorism.

 

In preventing and combating terrorism, we, guided by the idea of a community with a shared future, shall conduct proactive cooperation, foster an applicable international law system,41 maintain a positive and affirmative social environment, create a fundamental and common consensus in a fragmented international community. Only in this way can we urge different countries to foster a similar idea rather than fight against each other and hamper, criticize and oppose other countries in adopting related measures in the field of human rights protection with a mentality and principle of civilization conflict and political opposition. Only after recognizing the extensive and profound risks and threats arising from terrorism can different countries, organi-zations and parties reach a fundamental consensus step by step on both national and international level, formulate transparent and feasible laws and regulations on fighting against terrorism,42 support each other and strengthen bilateral cooperation in imple-menting such laws and regulations. Only in this way can we ensure the people live in a society far away from terror, where their basic human rights are recognized and protected, and their human rights in the other fields fully guaranteed with terrorism effectively combated. So a feasible method for better guaranteeing human rights is to promote social inclusion, social tolerance, social exchange and social development. Based on such ideas and measures, we can eradicate the foundations engendering terrorism and adopt medium and long-term strategies and means to deal with related issues in an effective and efficient manner.

 

V. Conclusion

 

As terrorism is a common threat to human society, the international community is obliged to make concerted efforts. The planning, design and implementation of counterterrorism operations shall be carried out on the premise of fully respecting and protecting human rights. Different governments shall fully consider diverse human rights, stand at frontiers of science and technology, focus on the shared future of man-kind, prevent and eradicate terrorism from the perspective of the whole process and total factors and ensure that both freedom and interests of specific groups are fully and effectively guaranteed.

 

(Translated by REN Zhengping)

 

 

 

*HE Zhipeng ( 何志鹏 ), Professor and Doctor of Law, Executive Director of Jilin University Center for Hu-man Rights Studies at Jilin University School of Law.

 

1. Robert Oakley, “International Terrorism”, 65 Foreign Affairs 3 (1986): 611-629.

1

2. Ayse Zarakol, “What Makes Terrorism Modern? Terrorism, Legitimacy, and the International System”, 37 Review of International Studies 5 (2011): 2311-2336.

 

3.Liu Ang, “The Post-September 11 Gaming between Counterterrorism and Anti-Torture from the Perspective of Human Rights”, Journal of People’s Public Security University of China (Social Sciences Edition) 6 (2010): 141-146.

 

4.International counterterrorism shall be incorporated into the framework of both international laws and international conventions on counterterrorism and take promoting peace and development and protecting basic hu-man rights as its ultimate goals. See Gu Chunde, “International Counterterrorism and Protecting Basic Human Rights - Reviewing the U.S.’s Current Situation of Counterterrorism”, Journal of Ideological & Theoretical Education 9 (2002): 36-37.

 

5.ShenYamei, “The analysis of US-European Counterterrorism Differences in Human Rights”, International Studies 3 (2005): 34-37.

 

6.Wang Xiumei, “The Balance between Maintaining Public Order and Respecting Human Rights in Punishing Terrorist Crimes”, Law Review 2 (2006): 54-61.

 

7.Qian Xuemei, “The Relationship between Counterterrorism and Human Rights Protection: From a Perspective of International Politics”, Human Rights 1 (2015): 109-119.

 

8.The counterterrorism campaign initiated by the United States urges the international community to reflect on a whole raft of issues from a legal and political perspective with regard to the law of war and international criminal law, right of self-defense and preemptive strikes, confirmation of the prisoner of war identity, imprisonment measures, torture and interrogation, whose legality has been extensively questioned by many scholars. See Zhong Zhenming, “The Adverse Impacts of the American Government’s Policy on Counterterrorism Campaign on International Law”, Social Sciences 5 (2008): 21-26.

 

9.Anthony Giddens, New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies (2nd edition) (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007), 2-8.

 

10.Michael Lawless, “Terrorism: An International Crime”, 63 International Journal 1 (2007): 139-159.

 

11.Zhang Zongliang points out different countries sometimes may infringe upon the personal rights of their citi-zens while formulating laws and regulations and improving and enhancing their counterterrorism operations. With this, international community shall take it as its highest pursuit of value to prevent human rights from being infringed upon by terrorist crimes in formulating counterterrorism laws and implementing related provisions. See Zhang Zongliang, “The Value Orientation of Counterterrorism Legislation - From the Perspective of Human Rights Protection”, Dongyue Tribune 4 (2006): 168-173.

 

12.Jiang Guoqing, “Counterterrorism, Human Rights Protection and World Peace”, Foreign Affairs Review 6 (2005): 89-94.

 

13.Su Li, “Qiu Ju Litigating Against a Village Head, Five Scientists Litigating Qiu’s Raticide and Freedom of Speech”, Chinese Journal of Law 3 (1996): 65-79.

 

14.Quan Ningxing, “Conflict of Rights: A Legal Phenomenon Deserves Enough Attention”, trans. Han Dayuan,

 

Global Law Review 4 (1996): 77-83.

 

15.Guan Jinhua, “Questioning Restriction and Balance of Conflict of Rights and Priority Application of Free-dom of Speech”, Chinese Journal of Law 3 (2000): 28-45.

 

16.Wang Kejin, “Conflict of Rights — An Empirical Legal Analysis”, Law and Social Development 2 (2004): 43-61.

 

17.Liu Zuoxiang, “Theoretical Issues Concerning Conflicts of Rights”, China Legal Science 2 (2002): 56-71; Liu Zuoxiang, “Competition, Cooperation and Conflict of Basic Rights”, Law Science 3 (2002): 76-82.

 

18.Hao Tiechuan, “Conflict of Rights: An Unquestioned Question”, Law Science 9 (2004): 3-6.

 

19.Ma Ling, “Differences between Constitutional and Legal Conflict of Rights - Discussion with Dr. Zhang Xiang”, Studies in Law and Business 6 (2006): 3-7.

 

20.Xu Zhendong, “Several Misunderstandings on Conflicts of Basic Rights — Discussion with Dr. Zhang Xiang and Professor Ma Ling”, Studies in Law and Business 6 (2007): 36-44.

 

21.Zhang Pinghua, “Distinguishing Conflicts of Rights”, Science of Law 6 (2006): 60-69.

 

22.Lin Laifan, Zhang Zhuoming, “On the Rank of Rights of Conflict of Rights - Regulating Dialysis from a Legal Perspective”, Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences) 6 (2003): 5-13.

 

23.Guo Mingrui, “Status Quo, Basic Types and Handling Principles of Conflict of Rights”, Legal Forum 1 (2006): 5-10.

 

24.Zhang Pinghua, “Rank of Rights — Preliminary Research into Mitigating Mechanism for Conflicts of Rights”, Science of Law 6 (2007): 32-45.

 

25.Zhang Xiang, “Regulatory Structure and Handling Model for Conflicts of Basic Rights”, Studies in Law and Business 4 (2006): 94-102.

 

26.He Zhipeng, “Conflicts of Rights: An Interpretation Based on the “Resource-Demand” Model”, Global Law Review 1 (2011): 38-47.

 

27.Peter Bernholz, “International Political System, Supreme Values and Terrorism”, 128 Public Choice 1/2 (2006): 221-231.

 

28.Mariaelisa Eoifanio, “Legislative Response to International Terrorism, 48 Journal of Peace Research 3 (2011): 399-411.

 

29.The scholars upholding Western ideas on human rights may state that the author doesn’t recognize the inherent dignity of human beings. Based on the author’s theoretical analysis on human rights and research results of sociology and psychology, the so-called inherent dignity of people results from the long-term inheritance and continuous refinement of human society and doesn’t act as virtual reality deviating from social values.

 

30.Since September 11, 2001 the United States has adopted a series of unilateral counterterrorism military op-erations by invoking the right of self-defense as prescribed in the international law, which have been widely questioned and opposed by most scholars. They claim the appropriateness and legitimacy of the claim to self-defense by the United States is questionable and the self-defense outcomes are dangerous to others So it is imperative to formulate stringent provisions on the procedures and connotation of the right of self-defense under international law. See Li Xueping, “Reviewing America’s Defensive Counterterrorism Military Operations from the Perspective of Right of Self-Defense as Prescribed in International Law”, Lingnan Journal 5 (2003): 93-96.

 

31.Eric Neumayer and Thomas Plumper, “International Terrorism and the Clash of Civilizations”, 39 British Journal of Political Science 4 (2009): 711-734.

 

32.Dipak K.Gupta, “Accounting for the Waves of International Terrorism”, 2 Perspectives on Terrorism 11 (2008): 3-9.

 

33.She Shuo and Liu Xu, “Analysis on New Trends and Governance of Cyberterrorism”, Journal of Information 2 (2018): 37-44.

 

34.Huang Deming and Yang Kai state that in the age of network informatization and terrorists utilizing advanced internet technology to engage in terrorist activities, cyberterrorism comes out. Leveraging the anonymity and globalization of the internet, cyberterrorism poses new challenges for the international community. China has paid close attention to fighting against cyberterrorism, both actively conducting dialogue and cooperation in the international arena and improving the international law system curbing cyberterrorism and cracking down on cyberterrorism by optimizing its domestic laws. By proactively participating in the international cyberspace counterterrorism campaign, China has reinforced its image as a responsible major power and safe-guarded the interests of a cyberspace with Chinese President Xi Jinping a cyberspace community with shared future. See Huang Deming and Yang Kai, “China’s Participation in Improving International Law Concerning Cyberspace Counterterrorism”, Journal of Shandong Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences) 1 (2018): 55-64.

 

35.Xu Junhua states that in conducting multilateral counterterrorism cooperation and formulating an international strategic plan, China, guided by the development idea of a community with a shared future for humanity and an overall national security outlook, shall safeguard the UN’s leading role in international counterterrorism, uphold the principle of focusing on both counterterrorism and human rights protection, and follow the train of thought of formulating integrated measures and addressing both symptoms and root causes. While implementing specific measures, China shall expand its international counterterrorism cooperation with the countries along the Belt and Road and related international organizations, continuously optimize its measures of preventing and combating terrorism and improve international and national counterterrorism legal sys-tems. See XuJunhua, “International Legislative Strategy for China to Conduct International Counterterrorism Cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative”, Law Review 1 (2019): 136-147.

 

36.Albert. J. Bereesen and Omar Lizardo, “International Terrorism and the World-System”, 22 Sociological Theory 1 (2004): 38-52.

 

37.Thomas Konig and Daniel Finke, “Legislative Governance in Times of International Terrorism”, 59 The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (2015): 262-282.

 

38.The international community confronts the phenomenon of the framentation of values while combating terrorism. When fighting against international terrorism, Western countries led by the United States advocate that state sovereignty shall not be taken as a barrier for international counterterrorism campaign, and intend to achieve a goal of eradicating terrorism by way of power transfer and democratic transplantation; in contrast, non-Western countries led by China and Russia claim that we shall not fight against terrorism at the expense of weakening state sovereignty, and shall respect other countries’ distinctive characteristics like history, cul-ture and development path. See Zeng Xianghong and Zou Jinjian, “Counterterrorism and Recognition: Value Fragmentation in Fully Combating Terrorism”, Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies 4 (2018): 113-155.

 

39.Combating terrorism has become an important field for global governance. In order to effectively combat terrorism, we should, first, change the structural conditions for the emergence and proliferation of terrorism; secondly, purposefully destroy terrorists’ most desired material resources, human resources, organizational resources, symbolic resources; and thirdly, foster the justice of architectural narratives and trustworthy counter narratives to weaken terrorism in association with international community. See Zeng Xianghong, “Integrated Governance of Terrorism — From the Perspective of the Social Movement Theory”, World Economics and Politics 1 (2017): 74-97.

 

40.Ni Chunle, “De-Radicalization Correction based on Governance Effects of Terrorism and Related Inspirations for China”, Journal of Criminal Investigation Police University of China 3 (2019): 5-14.

 

41.Gilbert Guillaume, “Terrorism and International Law”, 53 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 3 (2004): 537-548.

 

42.For example, Resolution 1373 adopted by the UN Security Council has improved the current international counterterrorism law in many aspects, but it still needs to be further strengthened in some respects which has been widely recognized by international community. See Liu Zheng, “On How Resolution 1373 Adopted by the UN Security Council Has Improved International Counterterrorism Law”, Shandong Social Sciences 6 (2003): 68-70.