Assessing Damage, Urging Action ‘70’s, ‘80’s, and ‘90’s, the framework of international humanitarian and human rights law13 was built upon. Oversight bodies were established and strengthened. Inter-governmental regional bodies and courts deepened this shared understanding; increasingly sophisticated jurisprudential analysis assisted States to comply with their commitments to uphold human rights and provide security to all. The assumption was that this international consensus would survive any and all threats. Initially, in the wake of the 9/11 attack, and the call for concerted action to defeat terrorism, there appears to have been some uncertainty about how the international community should best respond. However, resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations, soon reasserted the linkage between security and human rights. Member States were required to take action against terrorist threats within a framework of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. States were reminded that they must take appropriate counter-terrorist measures whilst complying with their obligations under international law, including in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.14 Regional organisations, such as the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe, adopted resolutions reaffirming the importance of protecting human rights in the struggle against terrorism.15 However, in practice, in many countries around the world, the fear of terrorism has been allowed to override the need to uphold human rights. For some States that routinely abused human rights in the past, counter-terrorism is simply the newest excuse behind which to hide; for other States, counter-terrorism is claimed to be the justification for departing from long-cherished norms. The Panel believes that it is difficult to exaggerate the risk to society as a whole when governments depart from their obligations in this way. The Panel examines below the ability of the current international order to respond to crisis and to genuine emergencies. The Panel also explores the extent to which the contemporary terrorist threat is truly an extraordinary and exceptional threat. 13 For a fuller discussion on the complementarity between human rights and humanitarian law, see Chapter Three. 14 See for instance, UN Security Council Resolution 1456 (2003) adopted on 20 January 2003, UN Doc. S/ RES/1456 (2003); UN General Assembly Resolution 60/158 (2005), adopted on 8 September 2005; UN Doc. A/Res/60/158 (2005); See in particular, UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006, Resolution 60/288, UN Doc. A/RES/60/288. 15 See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OAS Doc. OEA/ Ser.L/V/ll.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002, para. 51; Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1271 (2002), adopted on 24 January 2002; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Guidelines on Human Rights and the fight against terrorism, adopted on 11 July 2002 and Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorism, adopted on 2 March 2005. 17