From Legislation to Implementation: Challenges in Translating Counter-Terrorism Policy into Practice

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16883673

Abstract

This research paper explores the existing gap between the policy design and implementation of counter-terrorism (CT) by showing that a combination of bureaucratic hurdles, limitations in resources, and political influences systematically compromise the results of security in various national settings. By examining the case of the UK, Nigeria and Indonesia in a comparative case study method, owing to the different governance systems and the challenge of CT facing these countries, the research draws out common points of failure in implementation. The results show that not even well-developed legal frameworks are immune to institutional fragmentation (e.g., Nigeria: a 68 percent delay of counter-Boko Haram actions), protracted underfunding (e.g., Pakistan: an 82 percent unused amount of CT funds), and politicization (e.g., Hungary: a 41 percent decrease in effective capacity after manipulation of the budget). The paper uses three theoretical perspectives- Policy Implementation Theory, Institutional Analysis, and Securitization Theory to illustrate that these difficulties are structurally founded rather than coincidental, and that states of high threat have an implementation paradox (r = -.72, p < .01) in that the more the threats increase, the lower the compliance with the policy. The study is significant to the CT literature since it links the macro-level policy analysis to ground-level implementation dynamics, specifically with a focus on the overlooked micro-levels, including street-level bureaucracy and neighborhood trust. It provides ten evidence-based recommendations, such as inter-agency task forces, ring-fenced budgets, or community-led early warning systems; they are designed to break down context-specific barriers. The study refutes this assumption by contending that greater laws do not necessarily increase security by focusing on an implementation-centric paradigm in CT governance, and it is better to reduce vulnerability with measurable outcomes as a test of success.

Keywords: Counter-Terrorism, Policy Implementation, Bureaucratic Inefficiency, Resource Allocation, Securitization, Institutional Analysis, Terrorism Prevention