Designation and Delisting: From Terrorists to Peace Partners

Why do counterterrorism designation lists lack clear and standardized delisting procedures? I argue that the opacity of delisting mechanisms across the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), UN 1267 ISIL/AL Qaida sanctioning regime, and EU Common Position regional list is a functional feature of international power rather than a legal/structural oversight. Drawing on Barnett and Duvall's (2005) fourfold taxonomy of power, I contend that counterterrorism lists operate as instruments of coercive punishment, a vehicle of institutional diffusion, and as producers of legitimate/illegitimate actor categories. Transparency, therefore, would expose intelligence bargains, redistribute agenda-setting power outside of the states, and challenge the norm that delisting is a privilege rather than a legal right. To test this theory, I construct an original cross-regime dataset, tracing every group across designation regimes, coding for foreign policy alignment, cross-regime diffusion, and procedural reform. My empirical analysis is guided by three hypotheses: foreign policy alignment derives more delisting than behavioral change and peace agreements; cross-regime diffusion makes delisting less likely than designation of a group; procedural reforms, such as the creation of the UN Ombudsperson, expand formal review without producing proportional categorical change. The empirical analysis will also incorporate descriptive case tracing of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) over time years to further support the foreign alignment hypothesis. Among the other findings, the paper concludes that alignment with the designating power is the strongest guarantee for delising compared with behavioral change and peace agreements, with opacity shielding stalling actors from accountability.