‘Terrorism has become a significant threat to global peace and security.’ Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.
Approach · directive: “evaluate”
What it asks · Evaluate how far the UNSC's Counter-Terrorism Committee and related bodies (CTED, sanctions committees, UNOCT) have countered terrorism — successes, shortcomings and reforms.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Set out the CTC and its associated bodies: mandate and architecture
- Evaluate their effectiveness against terrorism: achievements, shortcomings, and a verdict with reforms
Open with · Set up after the 9/11 attacks, the Counter-Terrorism Committee oversees Resolution 1373, which obliges every member state to criminalise terrorism and its financing.
Cover
- Architecture: CTC with its Executive Directorate (CTED) for country assessments; the ISIL/Al-Qaida sanctions committee; the 1540 Committee; UN Office of Counter-Terrorism.
- Achievements: near-universal counter-terror laws, financing controls aligned with FATF, capacity building, sanctions listings with asset freezes and travel bans.
- New threats: under India's chairship (2022) the CTC adopted the Delhi Declaration on misuse of new technologies such as drones and social media.
- Limits: no agreed definition of terrorism — India's proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism is still pending.
- Politics: 'technical holds' by permanent members delayed listings — e.g., Masood Azhar was listed only in 2019.
- Enforcement rests on states; state sponsorship, weak capacity and human-rights concerns reduce impact.
- Emerging gaps: online radicalisation, crypto financing and lone-actor attacks outpace the framework.
Close with · The CTC has built a global legal framework, but its effectiveness depends on political will — adopting the CCIT and ending selective listings would make it credible.
Add value (verified)
- UN: the CTC was created when the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373 under Chapter VII on 28 September 2001. Security Council — Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), United Nations ↗“the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1373 (2001) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, defining a broad counter-terrorism mandate for the international community.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 328 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Terrorism crosses borders in fighters, finance and ideology, so no state can counter it alone. The Security Council created the Counter-Terrorism Committee when it unanimously adopted Resolution 1373 under Chapter VII on 28 September 2001, obliging every member state to criminalise terrorism and its financing.
The architecture
- The CTC, comprising all 15 Council members, monitors implementation of Resolution 1373; its Executive Directorate (CTED) assesses countries and recommends assistance.
- Associated bodies: the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee with asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargoes; the 1540 Committee on weapons of mass destruction and non-state actors; the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism for capacity building; and the General Assembly's Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (2006).
Achievements
- Near-universal counter-terror laws and financing controls, aligned with FATF standards, make it harder to move money and men across borders.
- Sanctions listings have frozen assets and constrained groups and individuals; CTED assessments have driven capacity building in weak states.
- Adaptation to new threats: under India's chairship in 2022 the CTC adopted the Delhi Declaration on countering terrorist use of drones, social media and online financing.
Shortcomings
- No agreed definition of terrorism: India's Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, proposed in 1996, remains pending, so who counts as a terrorist still depends on politics.
- Selective listing: 'technical holds' by permanent members delay designations — Masood Azhar was listed only in 2019 — eroding credibility.
- Enforcement depends on states: state sponsorship, safe havens and weak capacity blunt the framework, and sanctions without due process raise human-rights concerns.
- Emerging gaps: lone-actor attacks, online radicalisation and crypto financing outpace the rules.
Verdict and reforms
- Adopt the CCIT, end anonymous holds on listings, strengthen due process through the Ombudsperson, fund CTED's technical assistance, and integrate FATF and regional bodies more closely.
The CTC and its bodies have built a global legal and monitoring framework that did not exist before 2001, but their effectiveness stops where political will does; a shared definition and impartial listings would turn the framework into real deterrence.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.