Going forward after the reforms and adjustments of the 1990s, it was a reasonable expectation that humanitarian concerns would feature prominently across all UN sanctions regimes. Yet again, superpower prerogatives asserted themselves over UN sanctions when the attacks of 11 September 2001 threatened hard US national security interests. The attacks served as the impetus for a multi-pronged counter offensive with full-spectrum militarization as the centerpiece of national and international counterterrorism responses. UN counterterrorism sanctions were used to delegitimize radicalized Islam and its adherents, and to establish target lists of hard security threat actors to be disposed of with military force, or soft security targets for legal prosecution. With the wholesale abandonment of minimal standards of fair and clear procedures, the backlash against UN counterterrorism sanctions was inevitable. The new round of reforms exposed European P5 member states to the quandary of how to promote counterterrorism measures while at the same time championing due process standards vigorously defended by the EU High Courts. Effectively, the fight for due process against unlawful counterterrorism sanctions practices spearheaded by the P5 was the first time elected member states of the Security Council and their allies in the General Assembly issued a resounding rebuke of big power overreach.