Contemporary world order issue: terrorism and the rules-based order

What this dot point is asking

Part 3 of the World Order option (Legal Studies Stage 6 Syllabus 2009) lists four contemporary issues that must be studied, including regional and global situations that threaten peace and security. Terrorism is one of the clearest global threats, and you must identify and investigate it and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to it.

Terrorism tests world order in four ways: states cannot agree on a definition; the attackers are non-state actors outside most treaties; responses can involve force across borders; and domestic counter-terrorism law pulls against human rights. A Section III answer should connect international and Australian responses and judge their effectiveness with current evidence.

The answer

Terrorism as a threat to world order

Terrorism is the use or threat of violence, usually against civilians, to advance a political, religious or ideological cause by intimidating a population or coercing a government. It threatens world order because it:

• kills civilians and destabilises governments (Islamic State at its height in 2014 to 2017 controlled territory across Iraq and Syria);
• crosses borders through foreign fighters, financing and online propaganda;
• provokes military responses that can widen conflict (Afghanistan from 2001);
• can be sponsored by states, blurring the line between terrorism and inter-state conflict;
• pressures democracies to trade civil liberties for security.

The Uppsala Conflict Data Program found that violence against civilians rose sharply in 2024, driven partly by Islamic State affiliates in Africa, showing that the threat has shifted rather than disappeared since Islamic State lost its territory in Iraq and Syria in 2019.

The definition problem

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism in international law. Negotiations on a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism in a General Assembly committee have stalled since the late 1990s, mainly over whether armed struggles for self-determination and acts by a state's own forces should be excluded ("one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"). Without a definition, international law responds to specific conduct instead.

International legal responses

1. Sectoral treaties. The UN lists 19 international legal instruments against terrorism, each covering specific conduct, such as aircraft hijacking (1970), hostage-taking (1979), terrorist bombings (1997), terrorist financing (1999) and nuclear terrorism (2005). They oblige states to criminalise the conduct and to prosecute or extradite suspects (aut dedere aut judicare).

2. Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII, binding on all members (art 25).

• Resolution 1267 (1999) created sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans, arms embargoes) against the Taliban and al-Qaida, now the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida sanctions list.
• Resolution 1373 (2001), adopted after the 11 September attacks, required all states to criminalise terrorist financing, freeze assets, deny safe haven and cooperate, and set up the Counter-Terrorism Committee. It effectively legislated for all states.
• Resolution 1624 (2005) called on states to prohibit incitement.
• Resolution 2178 (2014) required states to criminalise travel by "foreign terrorist fighters" and their financing.
• Resolution 2799 (6 November 2025), adopted 14 votes to 0 with China abstaining, removed Syria's transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa and his interior minister from the ISIL and Al-Qaida sanctions list, after the fall of the Assad government. It shows that listings respond to political change, and critics and supporters differ on whether that is pragmatic or inconsistent.

3. Soft law and institutions

The UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GA Resolution 60/288, 2006) commits states to address conditions conducive to terrorism, prevent and combat it, build state capacity and respect human rights; it is reviewed every two years. The UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (2017) coordinates capacity-building, and the Financial Action Task Force sets standards on terrorist financing.

4. Force against terrorist groups

After 11 September 2001 the Security Council recognised the right of self-defence (Resolutions 1368 and 1373), and the United States and allies, including Australia, invaded Afghanistan relying on article 51. The Taliban returned to power in August 2021. Coalitions struck Islamic State in Iraq at Iraq's request and in Syria relying on collective self-defence where Syria was said to be "unwilling or unable" to act, a doctrine many states dispute. See the page on responses to conflict for the law on force.

5. International criminal law

Terrorism is not a separate crime in the Rome Statute, but attacks on civilians can be prosecuted as war crimes or crimes against humanity, and states prosecute terrorism in their own courts under the sectoral treaties.

Australia's legal response

Australia's framework is set out mainly in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), enacted from 2002 using the states' referral of power and the Commonwealth's own heads of power.

• Definition (s 100.1). A "terrorist act" is an action or threat of action done with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and of coercing or influencing by intimidation a government, or intimidating the public, which causes serious harm, death, serious property damage, a serious risk to health or safety or serious interference with electronic systems. Advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action not intended to cause serious harm is excluded.
• Offences (Divs 101 to 103). Engaging in a terrorist act (life imprisonment), preparing or planning one, training, possessing things connected with terrorism, and financing terrorism. Offences involving terrorist organisations include membership, recruiting, training and providing support; around 30 organisations are listed by regulation, including Islamic State, al-Qa'ida, Hamas (listed in its entirety in 2022) and the extreme right-wing group The Base.
• Control orders (Div 104) restrict a person's movement and communications without a conviction; the High Court upheld the regime in Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307 (5 to 2).
• Preventative detention orders (Div 105) allow detention without charge for up to 48 hours under Commonwealth law (up to 14 days under complementary state laws, such as the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW)).
• Post-sentence orders (Div 105A) allow a court to order the continuing detention or extended supervision of a convicted terrorist offender who poses an unacceptable risk; the High Court upheld continuing detention orders in Minister for Home Affairs v Benbrika (2021) 272 CLR 68.
• Other laws. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AUSTRAC reporting); ASIO's questioning warrants under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth); the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth); and the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019 (Cth), passed after the Christchurch mosque attacks.

Recent reforms (2025 to 2026).

• The Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 (Cth), passed on 6 February 2025, introduced mandatory minimum prison sentences for terrorism offences in Divisions 101 to 103 and for Nazi and terrorist symbol offences, after a wave of antisemitic attacks.
• After ASIO assessed that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps directed arson attacks on a Sydney restaurant (October 2024) and the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne (December 2024), the government expelled Iran's ambassador in August 2025, created a new "state sponsor of terrorism" listing in the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Act 2025 (Cth), and listed the IRGC on 27 November 2025.
• On 14 December 2025, a mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach killed 15 people; police declared it a terrorist incident, one alleged gunman was shot dead and the other was charged. NSW passed firearms and public assembly laws in December 2025. Parliament was recalled on 19 and 20 January 2026 and passed the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 (Cth), which increases penalties for hate crime offences, creates a regime to prohibit extremist hate groups that are not listed terrorist organisations, and allows visas to be refused or cancelled for hate-motivated conduct, together with the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 (Cth), which established a national gun buyback and tightened firearms checks and import controls. The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (Commissioner Virginia Bell) was established in January 2026, delivered an interim report on 30 April 2026 and, after its deadline was extended in September 2026, is due to deliver its final report by 18 December 2026. Civil liberties bodies, including the Australian Human Rights Commission and a UN Special Rapporteur, raised concerns about the breadth of the new laws.
• Control orders, preventative detention orders and post-sentence orders are subject to sunset clauses and are due to expire on 7 December 2026. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, introduced on 12 August 2026 and passed by the House of Representatives on 20 August 2026, would extend them, and the Crimes Act's terrorism-related stop, search and seizure powers, to 7 December 2029. It would also update the post-sentence order and control order frameworks for serious terrorist offenders, expand information sharing and clarify the process for de-listing terrorist organisations. As at September 2026 it was before the Senate and had been referred to the PJCIS, so check whether it has passed before your exam.

The human rights tension

Counter-terrorism law restricts rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, including liberty (art 9), freedom of expression (art 19) and association (art 22), and Australia has no national bill of rights.

• Preventive restraints without conviction (control orders, preventative detention) depart from the principle that liberty is lost only after a criminal trial.
• Citizenship cessation. In Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 276 CLR 336 the High Court held invalid s 36B of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), which let the Minister strip the citizenship of dual nationals for terrorism-related conduct, because it gave the executive the judicial function of punishing criminal guilt. In Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 33 it struck down s 36D, which let the Minister cease citizenship after a conviction. Parliament responded in 2023 by giving the power to courts at sentencing.
• Oversight. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor reviews the laws, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security examines bills. Their recommendations are often, but not always, adopted.

Non-legal responses

• Intelligence cooperation through the Five Eyes partnership and INTERPOL; Australia's National Terrorism Threat Level was raised from POSSIBLE to PROBABLE in August 2024.
• Countering violent extremism programs, such as Living Safe Together and state intervention programs that divert young people.
• The Christchurch Call (2019), led by New Zealand and France, in which governments and technology companies committed to remove terrorist content online.
• Community and social cohesion work, including interfaith initiatives after the Bondi attack.
• Media, which informs the public but can also spread terrorist propaganda; the abhorrent violent material laws respond to this.

Evaluating the effectiveness of responses

Judgement. Responses to terrorism are moderately effective. International law has built a genuine system of cooperation, especially on financing and prosecution, and Australia's agencies have disrupted many attacks. But the lack of a definition, the dependence on state capacity and political choices, the growth of online and lone-actor radicalisation, and state sponsorship limit what law can do, while each new wave of laws raises the question whether the rights costs are proportionate. The most effective responses combine law with non-legal measures that build social cohesion.

In one sentence

With no agreed definition, the world responds to terrorism through sectoral treaties, binding Security Council resolutions and, at times, force, while Australia relies on an extensive Criminal Code framework tightened in 2025 and 2026 after the Bondi attack, and these responses have improved cooperation and disruption but remain limited by politics, lone-actor radicalisation and a persistent tension with civil liberties.

Try this

Q1. Outline the definition of a terrorist act in Australian law. (4 marks)

• What the marker wants. Section 100.1: action or threat, the cause intention, the coercion or intimidation intention, the harms, and the advocacy and protest exclusion.

Q2. Explain how Australia's response to terrorism has changed since 2024. (6 marks)

• What the marker wants. The Hate Crimes Act 2025, the IRGC listing, the Bondi attack and the 2026 Acts and Royal Commission, and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, with reasons.

Q3. To what extent do counter-terrorism laws in Australia strike an appropriate balance between security and individual rights? (8 marks)

• What the marker wants. Control orders, preventative detention and post-sentence orders, the High Court cases, oversight bodies, and a clear judgement.