Research Article Victims of Terrorism and the Right to Redress: Challenges and Contradictions in the

The U.N. Global Counterterrorism Strategy (A/RES/60/288) recognizes that the war on terror can only be won by protecting the rights of its victims. However, almost a decade since its adoption, the application of a human rights framework to the protection of the rights of victims of terrorism has been largely neglected. A 2012 report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson sought to address this inattention, recommending that member states provide reparations to victims of terrorism regardless of the question of State responsibility. While this application of a human rights framework to the discourse on terrorism victims ’ rights has been a breakthrough, the recommendations of the Emmerson report imply several thorny issues and fail to confront several key concepts embedded in its assumptions. Analyzing the international norms surrounding victims ’ rights vis-à-vis reparations and state responsibility, we posit that all member states indeed have the obligation to protect the rights of victims as human rights and provide avenues for redress. However, we argue that the narrow definition of terrorism in the Emmerson report that fails to include institutional or state terrorism leads to legal and normative questions about who its rightful victims are, who should be held responsible, and what the role of the state and international community is with regard to restitution. Such unresolved questions in international law could ultimately be detrimental to th