Erika Brady discusses the effectiveness and ethics of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST.

For the past decade, I’ve been interested, and sometimes troubled, by the question of how effective our counter-terrorism strategies really are. The UK’s CONTEST strategy, which guides our national approach to terrorism, is built around four pillars (the four Ps): Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. Yet, despite its importance, no one had really looked at how the whole system worked together.

My early research set out to do just that. I wanted to understand whether CONTEST, as a complete framework, truly achieves what it sets out to do. To do this, I developed a model that measures how the different parts of the strategy interact and perform — not just in isolation, but as part of a wider effort to keep the UK safe. It revealed strengths, but also highlighted gaps, especially around transparency and accountability. We can’t improve what we don’t fully understand.

As my work evolved, I became increasingly interested in the difficult balance between national security and human rights. The dominant narrative often tells us security must come first, but I believe that if we compromise too much on rights today, we create the conditions for insecurity tomorrow.

This issue became more concerning when I began researching the British women and children still held in camps in Northern Syria. Many of them have had their UK citizenship revoked. Through my research, I believe that this approach is short-sighted. It may feel like a tough response, but it creates a long-term security risk, especially since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024 has further destablised the region. It also leaves serious human rights concerns unresolved. Repatriating citizens, ensuring fair trials, and applying appropriate security measures at home is a far safer and more principled path.

That’s why I was particularly encouraged to see the recently published ‘Report of the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice’ (November 2025) highlight these very issues. I was pleased to see that the report cites my work on counter-terrorism strategy effectiveness and the deprivation of citizenship. Among its 113 recommendations, I was especially pleased to see Recommendation 2 which calls for the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to oversee all counter-terrorism powers, including citizenship deprivation. The report also urges a coherent policy for nationals detained in Syria, including women and children. This is a crucial step forward.

Counter-terrorism strategy will always involve difficult trade-offs. But a “one size fits all” approach has never worked and it won’t now. If we want to prevent terrorism, we must also understand and address the vulnerabilities that lead people down that path. That means combining strong security with compassion, oversight and the courage to uphold our values even when it’s hard.

Only then can we truly say we’re keeping the UK, its principles and all of its citizens (even the less desirable ones) safe. We have a world-leading counter-terrorism strategy here in the UK. Let’s ensure that appropriate oversight and accountability evolve and remain a central part of what keeps us safe. Security without respect for human rights and international obligations will never achieve the best results.

Dr Erika Brady is Senior Lecturer and Deputy Course Director BSc in Countering Terrorism and Extremism