• Furthermore, the designation of individuals as FTFs should be based on what individuals have done, and intended to do, not on the deemed nature, or designation, of a group or a cause which they are deemed to support. Many measures to date have focused on preventing and responding to prohibited travel to particular states, or to support named groups,74 though this designation runs the risk of selectivity and manipulation. The problem of politicization, selectivity and lack of transparency around the process of “terrorist” designation is longstanding. The vast number of prohibited “terrorist” organizations and entities, so deemed by states around the world or identified on terrorist lists nationally and internationally, means the scope and impact of the measures adopted in the few years since the adoption of UNSC Resolution 2178 (2014) could greatly increase in the years to come. • Although FTF-related provisions refer to “fighters”, the scope of those covered by the provisions goes far beyond those engaging in combat.75 It reaches travelers who engage in an array of roles abroad and in relation to quite different types of groups, as well as a much broader web of individuals deemed to be supporting, facilitating or encouraging such travel. In light of available facts, which indicate that very many of those covered by FTF laws and policies were in fact not engaged in fighting in any way, the use of the term is misleading. It also conveys the intention to address participation in armed conflict, while covering civilians who do not engage in “direct participation in hostilities” and therefore enjoy general protection under humanitarian law.76 Implications for the Application of International Humanitarian Law In accordance with the introductory paragraphs of UNSC Resolution 2178 (2014) and most other resolutions, states must interpret their FTF obligations consistently with international humanitarian law (IHL) and they should not undermine the operation or effectiveness of IHL. The conflation of “terrorism” and “armed conflict” in the Resolution raises significant international rule of law issues, which states should seek to address through implementation. There is a long history of opponents in an armed conflict, especially a non-international armed conflict, being labeled “terrorists”. However, acts of terrorism that may arise in armed conflict must be distinguished from mere participation in a conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others have underscored the importance of clarifying the distinction between the two to preserve the proper functioning of IHL. While participation in a non-international armed conflict may, in practice, lead 74  UNSC Resolutions since 2015 have named specific groups. 75  See: UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (hereafter, UN Working Group on mercenaries), Report to the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/70/330, 19 August 2015. 76  For further information on what constitutes “direct participation in hostilities” see e.g., Nils Melzer, “Interpretative guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law”, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), <www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990. pdf>. The issue has given rise to particular concern in relation to responses to women whose support or roles have often (though, as noted in section 3.7 below, not always) fallen far short of standards concerning direct participation in hostilities. 24 Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters”