hand, increasingly expansive approaches to criminal law and administrative measures have been among the features of states’ responses to the challenges posed by FTFs, with potentially far-reaching impacts on a broad range of human rights, including the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, freedom of movement, freedom of ­expression and others. Like other responses to terrorism, Resolutions 2178 (2014) and 2396 (2017) have been criticized for creating obligations for states to take broad-reaching measures, without clearly defining the target.9 The fact that far-reaching measures are directed at a broadly or ill-defined issue – and the significant impact they may have on those targeted or indirectly affected – contributes to serious concerns about the compliance of those measures and other counter-terrorism efforts, with fundamental human rights and rule of law principles. While states have an obligation to prevent and counter terrorism, including terrorism-related acts committed by FTFs, measures should be carefully designed to ensure that they are human rights-compliant and do not undermine the global human rights and rule of law framework while countering terrorism. Doing so would jeopardize not only the legitimacy but also the effectiveness of national and international counter-terrorism efforts. Scope and Purpose of the Document This document seeks to provide states with policy recommendations, and supporting analysis, on some of the key human rights issues that they must grapple with as they seek to respond to the threats posed by FTFs in a manner that is consistent with human rights and the rule of law. Following a brief overview of background facts, international and national responses, this document offers a series of recommendations for a human rights-compliant approach to addressing the flow and return of FTFs. It does not purport to provide an exhaustive analysis of its manifestations, states’ responses or the many human rights challenges arising in OSCE participating States from the challenge of FTFs. Nor does it purport to present straightforward solutions to a complex and multi-faceted problem. Instead, it seeks, through recommendations and supporting analysis, to suggest human rights approaches, consistent with states’ obligations and commitments, in light of concerns that have arisen in practice. In a rapidly evolving environment, we hope that this document will serve as a springboard for the further exchange of ideas, and sharing of good practices within and outside of the OSCE on addressing the challenges posed by FTFs in a manner responsive to security needs and compliant with human rights standards. This publication complements guidance documents developed by other international actors.10 9  In particular, UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001), adopted on 28 September 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack in the United States. For a more detailed discussion of these definitional ambiguities, see sections 2 and 3.1 below. 10  See, for example, “Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters”, UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF), Working Group on Promoting and Protecting Human Rights and the Rule of Law while Countering Terrorism, (hereafter UN CTITF Guidance 2018), 28 June 2018, <www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Documents/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fightersweb%20final.pdf>. Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” 9