A/73/362 fundamental freedoms on which this right depends. The paradox, as researchers have stressed, is that in many places denying freedom of religion or belief has resulted in less order and more violence. It seems, they note, that that there is a correlation between restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and increases in conflict and violent religious persecution, and that it is not pluralism that threatens public order, but rather attempts to repress it that breeds the conditions for conflict. 71. In line with the commitment to advance a human rights approach when preventing violent extremism, it will be important for States to ensure that they fully discharge their obligation to respect, protect and promote the right to freedom of religion or belief if they are to make inroads in fulfilling national security needs. However, the implementation of these obligations should not be seen as arising primarily from their instrumental value in preventing violent extremism. Rather, they should be viewed as compulsions informed by the normative and legal obligations incumbent upon States. 72. In recognizing the inadequacies of counter-terrorism responses enacted at the start of the millennium to address rising acts of violent extremism, a shift in the approach taken by the United Nations towards combating these phenomena has developed over the past decade (see A/70/371, para. 14, and Security Council resolution 2129 (2013), para. 19). This change was, in part, designed to move away from a narrow, security-oriented approach to combating ideologically motivated violence towards a more “holistic” strategy aimed at engaging with and addressing the varied drivers of violent extremism and terrorism as preventive measures. 73. While noting the importance of preventing violent extremism, and further stressing that such an approach must remain a priority, the Special Rapporteur, contends that the goal of bringing the reach and expertise of a variety of societal actors to bear on the development and implementation of preventive strategies has been undermined. Many of the institutions and processes maintained and promoted by these actors have been co-opted at the national level — essentially rendering them the “eyes and ears” of security apparatuses, rather than guides in a broader approach to countering an existential threat. Strategies to prevent and counter violent extremism that seek to engage whole societies in fostering resilience against intolerance and violent extremism risk failing if they become a back door through which an increasing range of socioeconomic sectors, cultural activities and ethnic and religious communities are viewed through a security lens. The corresponding result could be counterproductive, undermining social cohesion, alienating communities, diminishing trust and possibly aggravating some of the drivers of violent extremism. 74. Furthermore, while security and the enjoyment of human rights are mutually reinforcing, the manner in which this synergy is obtained is not by subjecting freedom of religion or belief and other human rights to a security test or a utility analysis, but by ensuring that legitimate concerns about national security and public safety are pursued within the regime of limitations and derogations provided for by the United Nations human rights framework. This regime identifies exhaustive grounds and specific criteria for limitations and permissible scope for derogations. The perception that security needs cannot be met while respecting human rights, including the broad constellation of rights related to the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief, may amount to negating the human rights framework and could imperil the foundation of peace, freedom and justice in the world. 20/22 18-14697