@article{Rothermel2021,
  author    = {Rothermel, Ann-Kathrin},
  title     = {Gender at the crossroads},
  series = {Critical studies on terrorism},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Critical studies on terrorism},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {London [u.a.]},
  issn      = {1753-9153},
  doi       = {10.1080/17539153.2021.1969061},
  pages     = {533 -- 558},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Since the early 2000s, the United Nations (UN) global counterterrorism architecture has seen significant changes towards increased multilateralism, a focus on prevention, and inter-institutional coordination across the UN's three pillars of work. Throughout this reform process, gender aspects have increasingly become presented as a "cross-cutting" theme. In this article, I investigate the role of gender in the UN's counterterrorism reform process at the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, or "triple nexus", from a feminist institutionalist perspective. I conduct a feminist discourse analysis of the counterterrorism discourses of three UN entities, which represent the different UN pillars of peace and security (DPO), development (UNDP), and humanitarianism and human rights (OHCHR). The article examines the role of gender in the inter-institutional reform process by focusing on the changes, overlaps and differences in the discursive production of gender in the entities' counterterrorism agendas over time and in two recent UN counterterrorism conferences. I find that gendered dynamics of nested newness and institutional layering have played an essential role both as a justification for the involvement of individual entities in counterterrorism and as a vehicle for inter-institutional cooperation and struggle for discursive power.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RothermelShepherd2022,
  author    = {Rothermel, Ann-Kathrin and Shepherd, Laura J.},
  title     = {Introduction},
  series = {Critical studies on terrorism},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Critical studies on terrorism},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1753-9153},
  doi       = {10.1080/17539153.2022.2101535},
  pages     = {523 -- 532},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Several global governance initiatives launched in recent years have explicitly sought to integrate concern for gender equality and gendered harms into efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism (CT/CVE). As a result, commitments to gender-sensitivity and gender equality in international and regional CT/CVE initiatives, in national action plans, and at the level of civil society programming, have become a common aspect of the multilevel governance of terrorism and violent extremism. In light of these developments, aspects of our own research have turned in the past years to explore how concerns about gender are being incorporated in the governance of (counter-)terrorism and violent extremism, and how this development has affected (gendered) practices and power relations in counterterrorism policymaking and implementation. We were inspired by the growing literature on gender and CT/CVE, and critical scholarship on terrorism and political violence, to bring together a collection of new research addressing these questions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Doerfler2023,
  author    = {D{\"o}rfler, Thomas},
  title     = {Why rules matter: shaping security council sanctions policy in counterterrorism and beyond},
  series = {Journal of global security studies},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Journal of global security studies},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {2057-3170},
  doi       = {10.1093/jogss/ogac041},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Sanctions are critical to the Security Council's efforts to fight terrorism. What is striking is that the Council's sanctions regimes are subject to detailed sets of rules and decision criteria. The scholarship on human rights in counterterrorism assumes that rights advocacy and court litigation have prompted this development. The article complements this literature by highlighting an unexplored internal driver of legal-regulatory decision-making and explores how mixed-motive interest constellations among Security Council members have affected the extent of committee regulations and the content of decisions taken by sanctions committees. Based on internal documents and diplomatic cables, a comparative analysis of the Iraq sanctions regime and the counterterrorism sanctions regime demonstrates that mixed-motive interest constellations among Security Council members provide incentives to elaborate rules to guide decision-making resulting in legal-regulatory sanctions governance, even if the human rights of targeted individuals are not at stake. For comparative leverage and to assess the limits of the proposed mechanism, the analysis is briefly extended to other sanctions regimes targeting individuals (Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan). The findings have implications for this essential tool of the Security Council to react to threats to peace as diverse as counterterrorism, nonproliferation, and internal armed conflict.},
  language  = {en}
}