12. 特别报告员感到关切的是，在“暴力极端主义”一词写入联合国决议近十年后，在秘书长将该词汇列为联合国各机构和方案以及各国政府的优先事项约五年之后，“暴力极端主义”的定义仍然不透明，争论不休。21 她警告说，不要使用新的术语，如“恐怖主义”等术语，这种术语过于含糊，并允许在应用时具有广泛的自由裁量权。22 采用新术语本身并不能保证其不被滥用，也不能保证采取全面措施来防止和打击暴力极端主义。缺乏国际定义导致了这样一个事实，即在全球范围内，越来越多的措施属于防止和打击暴力极端主义这个范畴。这些措施一方面是反恐机构的组成部分，即执法部门可利用的“软工具”，最终目的是增加被判犯有与恐怖主义有关罪行的人数，另一方面是解决边缘化社区和个人面临的长期挑战的社会和经济措施，取代个人和社区根据国际法享有的基于社会、文化和经济权利的应享权利。这两种方法都面临多重人权挑战，必须谨慎对待每一步。从这个意义上说，使用“暴力极端主义”作为通过新战略、措施和立法的基础，必须被视为比“恐怖主义”一词对人权的危害要大得多。特别报告员强调指出，由于暴力极端主义缺乏语义和概念上的清晰度，这阻碍了深入审查打击暴力极端主义的战略和政策对人权的影响，以及在减少恐怖主义威胁方面的效力。23
12. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, almost a decade after the term made its way into United Nations resolutions, and some five years after the Secretary-General21 made it a priority for United Nations agencies and programmes, as well as Governments, the definition of “violent extremism” remains opaque and deeply contested. She warns against the use of new terminology that, like terrorism, is overly vague and allows for broad discretion in its application.22 The introduction of new terminology does not in and of itself provide any guarantee against its abusive application and the adoption of sweeping measures to prevent and counter violent extremism. The absence of an international definition contributes to the fact that, across the globe, an ever-expanding range of measures fall under that umbrella. They include, on the one hand, measures that are part of the counter-terrorism apparatus –the “soft tools” available to law enforcement – ultimately aimed at increasing the number of individuals convicted for terrorism-related crimes and, on the other hand, social and economic measures that address the long-term challenges faced by marginalized communities and individuals, substituting social, cultural and economic rights-based entitlements held by individuals and communities under international law. Both approaches come with multiple human rights challenges and must be approached with caution at every step. In that sense, the use of “violent extremism” as a basis for the adoption of new strategies, measures and legislation must be seen as significantly more hazardous for human rights than the term “terrorism”. The Special Rapporteur underscores that the lack of semantic and conceptual clarity surrounding violent extremism is an obstacle to any in-depth examination of the impact on human rights of strategies and policies to counter violent extremism, as well as of their effectiveness in reducing the threat of terrorism.23