In February 2015, Shamima Begum, Kadiza Sultana, and Amira Abase—aged between 15 and 16—traveled from Bethnal Green (East London) to Syria to join ISIS, following the same route taken three months earlier by their friend, Sharmeena Begum. While the fates of Kadiza, Amira, and Sharmeena remain uncertain, Shamima Begum’s case has become one of the most contentious intersections of counterterrorism, human rights, and international law.

Begum resurfaced in a Syrian refugee camp in 2019. Unlike other states that pursued controlled return or rehabilitation, the United Kingdom revoked her citizenship under Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, citing national security and claiming she could rely on Bangladeshi nationality—a claim Bangladesh rejected, leaving Begum effectively stateless. This decision sparked a prolonged legal battle, upheld by UK courts, and is now under review by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which is examining whether the UK considered its obligations under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly regarding trafficking and forced marriage, before creating de facto statelessness.

The ECtHR’s involvement has drawn criticism from some UK officials, who view it as interference and have vowed to maintain a decision supported by two-thirds of people in the UK, according to a November 2025 survey. In policy terms, therefore, responding to ECtHR’s intervention should be a straightforward matter for the UK Home Office. Nonetheless, critical questions raised by Begum’s case, such as compliance with trafficking safeguards and human rights standards—and how these can (and should) coexist with rigorous national security measures—cannot continue to be ignored. Beyond issues related to accordance with the law, this case could set a precedent for people with links to the UK who remain in camps for former ISIS members and their families who are vulnerable to, or have been victims of, coercion, trafficking, or exploitation, even if some have been involved in terrorism-related activity - including 30 to 40 minors.. 

Binding Obligations under International Law

The UK was one of the first countries to ratify the ECHR in 1951. By incorporating it into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK undertook a binding obligation to uphold Convention rights and implement ECtHR judgments. 

Article 4 of the ECHR imposes absolute duties to prevent, protect, and prosecute trafficking, as affirmed in the landmark Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010) judgment, which clarified State responsibilities across origin, transit, and destination countries. These obligations are reflected in UK frameworks like the Modern Slavery Act and the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), which require treating under‑18-year-olds as potential victims first.  

However, understanding Begum’s case requires clarity on what constitutes trafficking.

Defining Human Trafficking: The Palermo Protocol 

Ratified by the UK in February 2006, the “Palermo Protocol” defines “trafficking in persons” based on three elements: action (recruitment or movement), means (coercion, deception, abuse of vulnerability), and purpose (exploitation, including at a minimum sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, servitude, or organ removal). 

While all three elements need to be present in the cases of adult victims, the Protocol establishes that, in the case of children (any individual under the age of 18), trafficking exists once recruitment/movement for exploitation is shown. The Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS 197)—ratified by the UK in 2008—complements this, mandating a child-rights approach and victim-centered protections to protect, prevent, and prosecute human trafficking. 

Indicators of Human Trafficking: Shamima Begum’s Case

Although allegedly influenced by Sharmeena Begum, the Bethnal Green trio were officially recruited by 21-year-old ISIS “matchmaker” Tooba Gondal (alias Umm Muthanna Al‑Britaniyah), who used social media to groom teenagers with promises of belonging, purpose, and marriage inside the so-called “Caliphate.” Begum herself later described receiving explicit online instructions on travel routes and cover stories. Days after arriving in Syria, she was married off to a 23-year-old Dutch ISIS fighter, Yago Riedijk, and spent the following four years in ISIS-controlled territory. 

Facts satisfy the Palermo Protocol’s criteria: recruitment, movement across borders, and exploitation through forced marriage and servitude. And, while Begum’s demonstrable sympathy for ISIS could arguably indicate her agreement with all the above, international law treats a minor’s consent as legally irrelevant in the context of trafficking — a standard binding on all signatory states, including the UK.

The Legal Irrelevance of Consent: A scientific basis 

International law and neuroscience converge on why consent is irrelevant for minors: Children lack the legal capacity to make informed decisions and are inherently vulnerable to exploitation. 

Scientific evidence has shown that the areas of the brain responsible for planning and impulse control progress slower than the areas that regulate the brain’s rewards systems. This developmental mismatch explains susceptibility to poorly regulated behaviors in adolescents and emerging adults, including risk-taking behaviors, especially under peer or emotional pressure. Regarding human trafficking, research has further shown that neurodevelopmental immaturity and emotional dysregulation affect trust, compliance, and susceptibility to authority, making children easy targets for grooming and coercion because of their hindered ability to interpret, resist, or escape harmful relationships. 

Based on this, it could be argued that, in Begum’s case, any apparent agreement occurred under conditions of vitiated consent. Then, addressing her case would require assessing vulnerabilities alongside perceived agency at the time any terrorism offenses took place, in order to balance effective protection, legal responsibilities, and the imperative to safeguard the public.  

Balancing Victimhood, Accountability, and National Security

Acknowledging Begum as a trafficking victim does not erase legitimate security concerns. She spent years in ISIS-controlled territory and could have engaged in criminal conduct, beyond joining a terror group. Therefore, Begum’s case should not be reduced to a “victim-or-perpetrator” dichotomy but rather serve to elucidate how the UK can manage an individual who may have been trafficked as a child and yet is assessed to pose a national security risk.

As long as the citizenship deprivation stands, even if Begum is recognized as a victim of trafficking and is de facto stateless, there is no automatic duty to reinstate her nationality, no matter how strong obligations to protect trafficking victims under international law are. On the other hand, if her British citizenship were restored—through a successful appeal or policy reversal—the government would be legally required to allow her entry under the British Nationality Act 1981, which guarantees the right of abode for citizens, and under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, which prohibits expelling nationals or denying entry. 

The latter scenario represents an opportunity for the UK to demonstrate that credible suspicion of child trafficking can coexist with lawful national security. A Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 would allow Begum’s return under strict conditions, followed by either prosecution for terrorism offenses or, if immediate trial is not feasible and based on an appropriate risk and needs analysis, she could be remanded in custody or fall under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) to manage risk. Accountability and protection can coexist, provided robust risk assessments, clear prosecutorial guidelines, and evidence-based mechanisms for rehabilitation due process and human rights protections are ensured throughout all proceedings and processes. 

Conclusion and Recommendations: A dual-track approach

Shamima Begum’s case underscores a broader challenge at the intersection of counterterrorism and human rights. For policymakers, three priorities stand out: (1) Embed trafficking assessments in all cases involving minors linked to extremist groups to strengthen protections and set clear precedents; (2) Enhance interagency coordination between counterterrorism units and child protection services, ensuring developmental science informs legal frameworks on radicalization and exploitation; and, (3) Establish clear protocols for managing returnees that balance accountability with rehabilitation, particularly for minors.

International standards reinforce this direction: the United Nations and regional bodies demand meaningful protection for trafficking victims, especially children, without granting immunity for serious offenses. Global frameworks such as the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and Security Council Resolution 2178 emphasize that human rights compliance is integral to sustainable counterterrorism policy. Domestically, the UK already has the tools: judicially supervised measures like TEOs, TPIMs, and closed material procedures, alongside the NRM, allow risk to be managed while documenting rights-compatible reasoning.

The UK should adopt a dual-track strategy for the Begum case and any similar ones: tight risk controls combined with genuine trafficking safeguards. Controlled repatriation, followed by prosecution and/or other preventative measures where justified, ensures public safety while activating the NRM and conducting Article 4 ECHR investigations fulfills international obligations. This approach protects the public, respects the rule of law, and upholds human rights commitments, making it a sustainable model for managing complex cases at the nexus of security and victim protection. It also strengthens public confidence and international credibility by demonstrating that counterterrorism and human rights are complementary pillars of effective policy.