Comparative Analysis of CT/CVE Policies: USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, and North Macedonia


We conducted a comparative analysis of five countries’ CT/CVE policies—USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden and North Macedonia—to identify common values and themes. All policies address the need for strengthening collaborations at the local level, considering the important role civil society plays in the frontline response to violent extremism. All policies also stress the need to address a range of extremist ideologies including Jihadist, Far Left, and Far Right groups, and to address radicalization in the online space as well as through in-person interventions. The United States policy is innovative with respect to others because it introduces the concept of targeted violence. By doing so, it recognizes the importance of including situations where ideology is not a known motivating factor behind the acts of violence. All policies highlight the need for evidence and recognize that CT/CVE programs and policies have been widely implemented without scientific proof of their effectiveness.

Download the pdf

Suggested Citation

Montrond Alberto, Anna Ekström, Rachel Nielson, Metodi Hadji-Janev and Elena Savoia. “Comparative Analysis of CT/CVE Policies: USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, and North Macedonia.” Homeland Security Affairs 18, Article 1 (May 2022)


According to the United Nations Security Council, there is an increased need for a cohesive and holistic approach to countering terrorism and violent extremism. As noted in resolution 2178/2014[1], the Council highlights that countering violent extremism (CVE) is a fundamental element to handle the ongoing security challenges to democratic stability and peace coming from terror group threats.  In this resolution, the Council recommends that countries implement preventative measures that combat the proliferation of violent extremism, including education and promotion of social inclusion and cohesion at the community level.  In addition, resolution 1624/2005[2] requires member States to restrict intolerance fueled by extremist ideologies and acts of incitement that can lead to terrorism.  It also stresses the importance of civil society actors combining efforts to promote peace through education and deeper understanding of cultural and religious differences, promoting tolerance and coexistence.[3] The main focus is to address the conditions that are conducive to the spread of terrorism.[4] The Council recognizes repressive measures alone will not suffice in preventing acts of terrorism, and that it is imperative to consider the grievances that are exploited by terrorists and their supporters.[5] This article presents an analysis of CT/CVE policies developed by five countries– USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden and North Macedonia– with the intent of identifying common themes, shared values and approaches across CT/CVE systems that are at different levels of development.  

CVE, AT and CT

Current policies designed to combat terrorism often include terminology related to three policy areas within the same policy document: countering violent extremism, counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism.  These three areas are defined as follows. Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) refers to preventative actions designed to counter extremists from recruiting, radicalizing, and mobilizing followers, and pushing them to commit acts of violence in the name of an ideology. Where possible, CVE activities are implemented as part of existing public safety efforts aimed at building resilience, inclusion, and preventing the weaponization of violence, but which do not include intelligence-gathering activities.[6] Anti-terrorism (AT) includes activities to deter terrorist acts.[7] AT is defensive in nature and relies on intelligence operations such as surveillance activities aimed at identifying specific threats, protecting potential terrorist targets, anticipating potential attacks, and neutralizing or mitigating the effects of such attacks.[8] Counter-terrorism(CT) is used to describe activities to counteract terrorists, it is offensive in nature and relies on operations[9] designed to capture terrorists and to actively defend specific targets from an attack.[10]

The existing linkage between AT and CT is intelligence, which is essential to dismantle and suppress violent extremist terror plots. On the other hand, the relationship between CVE and C/AT is much weaker and frequently the object of debate and scrutiny. As a result, CVE is frequently misinterpreted as a method of turning community members into actors of intelligence. To further complicate the debate, currently there is a lack of a unified definition of terrorism.  The difference between a criminal act and an act perpetrated by a terrorist lies in the motivation of the individual.  For example, the Las Vegas mass shooting[11] was a situation in which the U.S. federal definition of terrorism could not be applied due to a lack of information on the motive underlying the attack. Most of the 100 definitions on what constitutes an act of terror in use today[12] share three common themes; a violent act that is intended to create fear, is committed for some ideological goal, and deliberately targets or disregards the safety of innocent people.  All three of these criteria are related to the motive of the perpetrator and not the act per se.


Four out of the five countries included in this study were selected because they are participating in a joint project focused on the evaluation of policies and practices in CVE; the UK was added to the list because of its history of policy making in this field. The five policy documents underwent a qualitative analysis using systematic coding. Two reviewers assigned themes emerging from a close reading of the text and discussed results with a final re-assignment of codes that reflected both finer distinctions within themes and the relationship between topics and policies. We used the coded dataset created in NVivo v12 to develop the summary of findings for each theme as described below.


We begin with a description of the current U.S. policy followed by a comparative analysis of the policies from Canada, North Macedonia, United Kingdom, and Sweden.

USA: 2019 Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence

Figure 1. Word Cloud U.S. CT/CVE Policy

The 2019 DHS Strategic Security Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence[13] states that “the U.S is facing an increasingly complex, and evolving threat of terrorism and targeted violence from within its borders by means of non-state actors, critical to the U.S economy and democratic governance.” Foreign terrorist organizations remain a major threat to domestic security, whether through directed attacks or by inspiring susceptible individuals within our borders to commit acts of terror. However, the country is also challenged by a growing domestic threat from individuals inspired by violent extremist ideologies, as well as from those whose attacks are not perpetrated in the name of an ideology. In the 2019 U.S. policy, DHS highlights the need to confront these evolving challenges by building on promising practices, identifying innovative solutions, and developing a strategic holistic vision to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. The policy highlights how terrorism and targeted violence overlap, intersect, and interact as problems, and denotes the lack of a unified international legal construct which further undermines collaborations and prosecutions. It also addresses the need to develop a shared set of solutions.  The introduction of the term “targeted violence” characterizes and differentiates this most recent policy from previous ones. As represented in the word cloud in Figure 1, the term “violence” is the most frequently cited term in the policy document, while the term “extremism” is rarely used. Targeted violence is defined as “any incident of violence that implicates homeland security and/or U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) activities, and in which a known or knowable attacker selects a particular target prior to the violent attack[ST1] .”[14] The policy document continues by explaining the difference between terrorism and targeted violence: “unlike terrorism, targeted violence includes attacks otherwise lacking a clearly discernible political, ideological, or religious motivation, but that are of such severity and magnitude as to suggest intent to inflict a degree of mass injury, destruction, or death commensurate with known terrorist tactics[ST2] .”[15]  The terms terrorism, security, and prevention are included in the same policy document, sometimes without clear boundaries between the prevention of targeted violence and counter-terrorism operations.  This lack of clarity is likely to cause confusion similarly to previous CVE policies and prevention frameworks, on the roles and responsibilities of different agencies working in prevention efforts.

Comparative analysis of themes across policies

The analysis of the five policies revealed the identification of several themes. For simplicity we have grouped the themes into five major categories (Figure 2). All themes are reported by frequency of codes as generated during the qualitative analysis in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Policies’ Themes

The first category is about collaboration and information sharing. This category is a central theme extensively addressed by all policies as a priority area to prevent violent extremism and terrorism. The second category is related to countries’ capacities to prevent terror and extremism including the use of technology and legislative ability to assure that activities are conducted with full protection of civil rights and liberties. The third category is about the policy’s position on ideology. For example, all policies mention the groups they recognize as extreme or hate groups threatening the country. In particular, the UK policy includes specific actions taken to prevent further spread of extremists’ views, such as creation of counter narratives and protection of liberties and rights aligned with British values (i.e. countering Shariah Law practices, frequently mentioned in the UK policy). The fourth category is focused on prevention activities. Such activities include the identification of threats and execution of threat assessments, addressing individuals’ and societal vulnerabilities, preventing entryism in governmental positions (mentioned in the UK policy), developing ways to increase population awareness about violent extremism, and delivering training to professionals who may encounter violent extremists (i.e. schoolteachers, police officers, social workers, psychiatrists). Finally, the fifth category is about issues related to the protection of spaces such as potential targets of terrorism and border control. Figure 4 below represents the frequency of themes that emerged from the analysis of the policy documents. A detailed description of each theme follows in the text.

Figure. 3 Frequency of coded references by theme

Collaboration and Information Sharing

The U.S policy document recognizes that state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners are often the ones in the best position to recognize and address specific threats in their jurisdictions. In terms of international collaborations, the document refers to the DHS’s expansion of cooperation with foreign governments with the deployment of DHS personnel abroad working with foreign counterparts to develop standardized approaches of enforcement. The policy document also emphasizes the need for collaborations and partnerships with private sector companies with reference to their role in social resilience and prevention efforts at the local level.

The Canadian policy emphasizes the importance of multi-agency collaborations at the local, state, national and international level including the Five Eyes (Canada, USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand), the G7, the EU, the Global Terrorism Forum, the United Nations, the Global Coalition against Daesh, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Hedayah Center, and the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) in the UK.[16]

The North Macedonian strategy underlines the relevance of constant dialogue and collaboration between members of faith-based organizations, ethnic and cultural groups, and the need for building trust with religious organizations and community leaders. It also emphasizes the role of the government in developing a Western Balkan CVE/CT strategy and recognizes the importance of standardization across regional data-sharing platforms to enhance CVE/CT efforts.[17]

The UK strategy highlights the need for collaborations at the international level as well as the importance of “local people.”[18] Members of the community are stakeholders and have a key role in identifying extremist behaviors and reporting to local authorities. The UK Government strategy supports people who want to stand up against extremism in their community and seeks to protect the victims of violent extremism. More specifically the policy highlights the efforts to create a new network of individuals, and the need to link civil society groups around Britain who are already standing up to extremists in their communities.[19]

The Swedish strategy emphasizes the need for increased cooperation and collaboration between all actors concerned. These efforts include a holistic view of the measures to prevent, preempt or protect against terrorists to reduce the effects of increasing radicalization and exclusion. The strategy specifically mentions the role of the CT Cooperative Council consisting of 14 agencies. The policy document highlights the importance of establishing collaboration between security services, police, social services, schools, volunteers and religious leaders.

Prevention Activities

All five policy documents talk about the need for multidisciplinary work to prevent violent extremism and terrorism. Prevention programs are adopted across governments to detect and prevent intolerance, hate, and discrimination and promote social cohesion, encouraging communities to deter violent extremism by building resilient societies. Addressing the challenges of radicalization is a collaborative effort and must not to be undermined by understaffed and unresponsive community policing.

The United States policy encourages that efforts must be focused on multidisciplinary approaches and involve partnerships with societal stakeholders that can provide “off ramps away from terrorism and targeted violence, protecting the American people and reducing the burden on the criminal justice system[ST3] .”[20]

The Canadian policy stresses the development of community engagement, training for teachers, and open dialogue on complex issues to provide people with safe avenues to discuss differences that lead to extremist views and acts of violence.

The North Macedonian policy states that the government can counter violent extremism by tackling the underlining conditions that drive extremists, by implementing training and teaching to open dialogue on complex issues and providing students and the society at large with avenues to discuss grievances. The government of North Macedonia acknowledges the necessity to engage in a multidisciplinary interagency collaboration that includes civil society in the process for reconciliation of ethnic and cultural divides and to educate and promote democratic values in schools and community faith-based organizations by assuming a leadership role in the Balkans on the fight against violent extremism.

The Swedish policy recognizes that counter-radicalization processes begin by promoting democracy, tolerance, and democratic values and by countering acts of discrimination and exclusion. The policy states the importance of identifying measures and capabilities to prevent radicalization and violent extremism with a holistic approach to prevent, preempt, and protect against crimes in a manner that does not lead people to become more radicalized. The Swedish policy emphasizes the importance of democratic values and measures that encourage individuals who may be at risk of radicalization or who may have anti-democratic violent ideologies to be more included, by encouraging them to leave extremist groups. The key factors on the frontline of preventing radicalization are social services, the school system associations, non-governmental organizations, religious leaders, and politicians all working together with law enforcement authorities to harness the efforts to prevent radicalization.

The United Kingdom policy underscores important steps for prevention by identifying charities and organizations that are financially linked to supporting extremist organizations. The policy also talks about a growing concern of peer-to-peer extremism within the prison system. The UK national program seeks to build more resilient teachers and schools that support and address the risk of radicalization. The UK Department of Education has introduced interventions to teach children intensively the fundamental principles of democracy and rules-based societies. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is charged to supervise how universities are handling the risk of radicalization and implement policies to ensure extremist speakers are held accountable and do not go unchecked. The policy also recognizes the importance of reporting and solving hate crimes in a timely manner. The policy highlights solutions such as the Channel program, a voluntary program that provides personalized support to help individuals renounce violent behaviors and acts of radicalization.


Legislation is another important theme cited across policies. The UN resolution 2178 of the 2014 UN Security Council is a binding international law which states that traveling or attempting to travel abroad with the purpose of planning or receiving terrorism training must be criminalized as an act of terrorism by all nation states. This resolution requires member states to provide information regarding financial and non-financial actors involved in criminal activities under the Money Laundering Act. The Swedish government has a piece of legislation[21] related to terrorist organizations that criminalizes any act of public provocation, recruitment, and training considered a terrorism offense, however these organizations are very few in the country. Sweden has adopted additional protocols from the Council of Europe on preventing terrorism which increase opportunities and obligations to work together in extradition. The UK has passed legislation for broadcasters who engage in extremist propaganda and share platforms for hateful messages especially if on the commercial scale. The government also uses immigration legislative powers to protect the public from extremists, for example by limiting and restricting people who preach hate from entering the UK.  North Macedonia revised its counter-terrorism law in accordance with the UN Resolution. Since September 2014, the country’s CT law embodies articles that criminalize involvement as a foreign terrorist fighter. (Please see: Law of Sept. 3, 2014, on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia, -Official gazette, No. 164/14). The updated law has already been operationalized leading to multiple arrests across the municipalities.[22]

Civil Rights and Liberties

The Swedish policy clearly states that terrorism threatens the foundation of peace and security globally, fundamental rights, and the freedoms of democratic societies. All policies recognize the importance of privacy and civil rights. The Swedish policy states that freedom and rights may only be restricted to meet aims that are acceptable in a democratic society and only by using restrictive measures that are necessary, appropriate, and proportionate.

The North Macedonian policy states that radicalization becomes a threat to society when associated with violence or other unlawful acts, such as incitement to hatred. The Canadian, U.S., and British policies have similar stances in terms of civil rights to privacy.   Such rights are clearly undermined when profiles of potential terrorists are built upon stereotypes regarding the socio-economic status and religious ethnicity with other factors which in some cases have been questionable and unsubstantiated with solid evidence in court. Based on failed efforts, more recent initiatives have focused on behavioral models of escalation towards violence with an intentional move away from demographic profiling. 

Use of Technology

All policy documents reveal the need to develop counter and alternative narratives to combat extremists’ propaganda, as well as the need to collaborate with private companies who control online platforms. Criminals have adapted their skills to the opportunities provided by technology. The UK policy underlines the need for developing partnerships with the technology industry and law enforcement to eradicate terrorist and extremist material from the internet. The UK recognizes that the online space has been a great asset to ISIS and Al-Qaeda facilitating hate propaganda.  As criminals adopt the use of technology in their criminal enterprise, law enforcement agencies must stay ahead of the curve adapting and countering attacks in cyberspace. The UK policy places high priority on stopping online recruiting and radicalization.[23] North Macedonia recognizes that technology plays an important role as a facilitator of the process of radicalization and stipulates that “refining the comprehensive training and support for religious communities” must include “efforts to counter online radicalization[ST4] .” [24]  All five policies give significant attention to cyberspace as an evolving threat. The use of social media platforms has created vulnerabilities to exploit national governments with the dissemination of false propaganda and hate campaigns directed to weaken nation-states and democratic governance, especially in regions of the world prone to such exploitation.  The U.S. policy cites disinformation and interference with domestic politics  as a threat from both states and non-state actors hostile to the United States—using disinformation tactics targeting highly selective segments of the population with misleading intention to manipulate public opinion and affecting the democratic process of elections in America and around the globe. The five policies all recognize that public safety and security concerns must be approached from the international framework by creating the awareness of the dangers connected to terror attacks on cyberspace and to gain a better understanding of existing and new threats.


The analysis of five countries’ specific CT/CVE policies presents an opportunity to identify similarities and differences. The first most widely discussed theme is the need to maintain and expand collaborations and information sharing across countries; all five policies strongly emphasize the importance of collaborative efforts. Terrorism and violent extremism are not seen as isolated problems but as global issues to be addressed through international efforts and intelligence sharing.  All policies address the need for strengthening collaborations at the local level, considering the role civil society plays in the frontline response to individuals that may be attracted by extremist groups within the country or from abroad.  Prevention is seen as a holistic approach with the need for developing programs that address radicalization in the online space as well as through in person interventions. When individuals engaged in violent extremist groups come to the attention of social workers, teachers or law enforcement agents, these professionals should be trained to offer the subject alternative paths and disengagement opportunities; all policies discuss the need for such training.

Overall, the five policies describe very similar approaches to prevention efforts; the United States policy is innovative with respect to the others because it introduces the concept of targeted violence. By doing so, the United States recognizes the importance of including situations where ideology is not a motivating factor or where the motivations behind the act of violence are unknown.

To prevent radicalization, the U.S., Canada, UK, Sweden and North Macedonia are focused on taking proactive measures at the local community level. Working with religious organizations, NGOs and community leaders as well as with the private sector to address VE. The restriction of terrorist travel remains top priority for the US and partner countries; this measure is supported by UN Security Council Resolution 2396 which mandates all nations to cooperate with border security and monitoring of travelers that pose a threat.[25] The Swedish policy distinguishes itself with detailed legislation supporting the prevention of terrorist acts, having a clear legal framework is certainly a point of strength of this policy.[26] The UK policy is more focused on the need to address ideology compared to the other policies; it addresses the ramifications that ideology may have into law and order, referring to the practice of Shariah law in the UK which is strongly linked to extremists’ views not aligned with UK values. The Canadian policy is also similar to the U.S. and UK policies, with a clear focus on the prevention of radicalization and interventions at the community level which are well described in the Canadian document.

With respect to data needs, most policies recognize the need for evidence on what strategies work and recognize the fact that programs and policies have been widely implemented without scientific proof of their effectiveness. The Canadian policy points to the need for identifying best practices that can be transferred from case to case. Professionals in various sectors have limited knowledge of violent extremism and in most cases are not being educated about these issues. There is a need to understand what type of training is most effective and what system-level functions should be improved to prevent violent extremism and terrorism. The policy documents consist of guiding instruments, however, when addressing CT and CVE efforts, they unfortunately lack clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the many agencies that may be potentially involved in prevention efforts, and there is still a nebulous space between these two areas of work, between CT and CVE, where security intercepts the sphere of social work and public health. There is a great urgency to address the root causes of violent extremism by using multidisciplinary approaches at the international, national, and local levels. While security measures are important in combating violence and terrorism, local efforts focused on resilience and prevention, possibly driven by data on what works and what does not work, are just as important to increase confidence and trust in the process. There is a need for the international community to come together under a unified umbrella with harmonized laws working on the highest level of collaboration and information sharing. Current efforts placed on diplomacy and aid resources that risk neglecting marginalized segments of the population need to be reconsidered  in a time of a pandemic. As a matter of fact, more attention must be placed on how aid is distributed because the focus on building and supporting central governments’ capacity without addressing the periphery will only make things worse in many countries by further alienating those that are already disenfranchised. In this regard, it is important to understand the impact of certain policies and CVE/CT actions. Science diplomacy efforts may be helpful to countries that have the desire to tackle common problems and build constructive international partnerships to  understand what works in preventing violent extremism. [27] 

About the Authors

Alberto Montrond, MA

Mr. Montrond is a Senior Fellow and a Diplomatic Liaison at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health developing Government relations. He obtained his master’s degree from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at TUFTS University, in Boston. During the past several years Mr. Montrond has worked in the international context as a Deputy Member of Parliament for the Republic of Cape Verde. As a diplomatic liaison for Harvard University, he has led efforts to establish a project sponsored by the NATO SPS Program in the Western Balkans and supported efforts for the creation of a network of CVE practitioners and researchers named Global Safety Evaluation Network. His portfolio of activities is focused on developing collaborations between researchers, practitioners, and government officials on targeted violence and countering disinformation. Mr. Montrond is a policy analyst for the EPREP program focused on international security and the prevention of human trafficking and community violence.

Anna Hedin Ekström

Anna Ekström is a researcher at the Institute for Future Studies in Sweden and an adviser to the Swedish Police on issues regarding targeted violence. She is also a Ph.D. student in criminology at the University of Gävle. Ms Ekström has previously worked with the Swedish Government, the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish Defense University.  She also serves as the project lead for Evaluation Support for Countering Violent Extremism at the Local Level, a project sponsored by NATO, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Swedish Contingencies Agency (MSB). She may be reached at .

Metodi Hadji-Janev, Ph.D

Metodi Hadji Janev (Brigadier General – BG) is an Associate Professor at the Military Academy General Mihailo Apostolski in Skopje, associated member of the University of “Goce Delcev” in Stip, and an adjunct faculty member at Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University (ASU), U.S.A. BG Hadji-Janev specializes in legal aspects of countering asymmetric, cyber, and hybrid-based threats, with an emphasis on critical information infrastructure and critical infrastructure protection. He has served as a co-director of several NATO SPS projects at NATO’s Center of Excellence Defense Against Terrorism in Ankara (2011-2014) and as an academic course advisor designed for EUROCORPS in Strasburg (2015). In 2018, BG Hadji Janev was awarded the Legion of Merit Award by U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements as a Macedonian Defence attaché in Washington, D.C. He may be reached at .

Rachel Nielsen, MA, PhD

Rachel Nielsen obtained an MA in Forensic Psychology (2003) and a PsyD (2018) from the University of Denver in Colorado. Dr. Nielsen specialized in Behaviorism and focused on the treatment of trauma. Dr. Nielsen was the Director of the Colorado Resilience Collaborative (CRC) at the time of the writing of this manuscript, housed within the International Disaster Psychology program at the University of Denver. The CRC addresses identity-based violence and violent extremism in Colorado through partnerships, trainings to build awareness, and consultation and management of cases involving individuals on the path to violence. She may be reached .

Elena Savoia, MD, MPH

Elena Savoia is a medical doctor specialized in public health; she is the deputy director of the Emergency Preparedness Research, Evaluation & Practice (EPREP) Program at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and founder of the Community Safety Branch.  She has devoted her professional life to the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to measure public health systems’ capabilities in response to large-scale emergencies and to assess populations’ reactions in response to crises. She has also led several projects under DHS, NIJ, and NATO funding to assess the effectiveness of various CVE initiatives and to build capacity for countries engaged in CVE- focused evaluation sciences. She may be reached at .


This project received funding from the NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme (grant number SPS.MYPG 5556), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate (Cooperative Agreement Number: 2015-ST-108-FRG005) and Swedish Contingency Agency (MSB). The content of this manuscript as well as the views and discussions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of any of the above institutions, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. This manuscript was also the result of a capstone project focused on international security studies conducted by Mr. Montrond at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University.

A special thanks to Adam Baker, research assistant with the Harvard Chan EPREP team, for his support with editing.


Department of Homeland Security. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence. Available at; Accessed on May 13, 2022.

Department of Homeland Security. What is CVE? Department of Homeland Security. Available at; Accessed on May 13 2022.

Department of State. Diplomacy in Action. Country Report on Terrorism 2015. Available at; Accessed on May 13, 2022.

Department of State. 2018 Country Report on Terrorism. Available at; Accessed on May 13 2022.

Fähnrich, Birte. “Science Diplomacy: Investigating the Perspective of Scholars on Politics–Science Collaboration in International Affairs.” Public Understanding of Science. 26 (6): 688–703. doi:10.1177/0963662515616552. ISSN 0963-6625. PMID 26721551. S2CID 206607999.

Field Command. “Anti-terrorism vs. Counter-terrorism.” The Tactical Edge. Summer, 2011, .68-70. Available at; Accessed on April 17, 2019. Accessed on May 13 2022.

The Government of Sweden. Ministry of Justice. Article Published for Tougher Legislation Against Terror., Accessed on May 13, 2022.

Government of the UK. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. “Countering Terrorism and Violence Extremism Report 2018-2019.” Available at; Accessed on May 13 2022.

Meserole, Chris, and Daniel Byman. “Global Research Network on Terrorism and Technology: What Technology Companies Need to Know.” Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies: Paper … Available at;, Accessed on May 13, 2022.

North Macedonia. “National Strategy of The Republic of North Macedonia for Countering Violence Extremism. Available at; Accessed on May 13, 2022.

Roberts, Ivor. “Extremism and Terrorism.” Counter Extremism Project. Available at; Accessed on May 13, 2022.

UGC and Social News Team. BBC News. Las Vegas Shootings: Is the Gunman a Terrorist? BBC News. Available at;, Accessed on May 13, 2022.

United Nations. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 – United Nations Security Council. Counter-Terrorism. Available at; Accessed on May 13, 2022.

United Nations. United Nation Security Council Resolution 2178. Available at: Accessed on May 13, 2022.

United Nations. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006. Available at; Accessed on May 13, 2022.


[1] United Nation Security Council, Resolution 2178, 2014, Available at; Accessed on December 19, 2019.

[2] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 – United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism, Available at; Accessed on April 22, 2021.  

[3] Ibid.

[4] UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006, Available at; Accessed on April 22, 2021.

[5] Anti-terrorism vs. Counter-terrorism, The Tactical Edge, Available at; Accessed on April 17, 2019.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.,68-70.

[8] What is CVE? – Department of Homeland Security, available at;

[9] Ibid.

[10] Anti-terrorism vs. Counter-terrorism, The Tactical Edge … available at;–68-70.

[11]  Las Vegas shootings: Is the gunman a terrorist? – BBC News, Available at;, Accessed on Feb 19, 2019.

[12]  Global Research Network on Terrorism and Technology: Paper …, Available at;, Accessed on April 22, 2021.

[13] 2019 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence, Available at; Accessed on February 23, 2021,

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16]  Canada: Extremism and Terrorism | Counter Extremism Project, Available at; Accessed on April 22, 2021.

[17] National  Strategy of The Republic of North Macedonia For Countering Violence Extremism (2018-2022), Available at; Accessed on April 14, 2021.

[18] UK.GOV Counter Extremism Strategy, available at;

[19] Ibid.

[20] 2019 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence, Available at; Accessed on February 23, 2021,

[21] The Government of Sweden, Ministry of Justice, article published for tougher legislation on terror,, Accessed on March 22, 2020.

[22] U.S Department of State, Diplomacy in Action, Country Report on Terrorism 2015, Available at; Accessed on April, 19, 2021.

[23] Government of the UK, Office of Foreign Gov, Countering Terrorism and Violence Extremism Report 2018-2019. Available at;

[24] National  Strategy of The Republic of North Macedonia For Countering Violence Extremism (2018-2022), Available at; Accessed on April 14, 2021.

[25] United States Department of State, 2018 Country Report on Terrorism, Available at;

[26] The Government of Sweden, Ministry of Justice, article published for tougher legilsation on terror,, Accessed on March 22, 2020.

[27] Birte Fähnrich, “Science Diplomacy: Investigating the Perspective of Scholars on Politics–Science Collaboration in International Affairs,” Public Understanding of Science, 26 (6): 688–703, doi:10.1177/0963662515616552ISSN 0963-6625PMID 26721551S2CID 206607999.


Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Homeland Security Affairs is an academic journal available free of charge to individuals and institutions. Because the purpose of this publication is the widest possible dissemination of knowledge, copies of this journal and the articles contained herein may be printed or downloaded and redistributed for personal, research or educational purposes free of charge and without permission. Any commercial use of Homeland Security Affairs or the articles published herein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder. The copyright of all articles published in Homeland Security Affairs rests with the author(s) of the article. Homeland Security Affairs is the online journal of the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). Cover photo by pikisuperstar,

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top