Date of Conferral
Public Policy and Administration
The United Nations Counterterrorism and Human Rights Committees’ current collaborative practices have failed to reduce global terrorists’ activities and human rights abuses associated with counterterrorism activities. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore and compare collaborative processes between the committees in combatting terrorism and human rights violations associated with counterterrorism. The researched was centered around two key questions: The similarities and differences with information sharing processes and the impacts of the committees’ collaborative processes on terrorists’ activities and human rights violations. For this study, the pragmatic paradigm theoretical framework was used, focusing on the descriptive exploratory design. Secondary data was used as a source. Additionally, face-to-face and telephonic interviews with subject matter experts were conducted. Eclectic coding was used as the primary coding methodology to integrate other coding methodologies in the analysis process. The research concluded that the current multidisciplinary collaborative process used by the United Nations Counterterrorism Committee and Human Rights Committee creates inefficiencies that enable terrorists’ activities to adapt while reinforcing their terrorist message. Strategically integrating the interdisciplinary process within both committees could expand each committee’s awareness and efficiency in specified areas while positively reducing terrorist activities and human rights violations. Developing an appreciation and understanding beyond one’s individual expertise while melding expert considerations is the basis of the interdisciplinary process that can positively effect social change for a more stable international forum.