This chapter explores both the positive and the negative aspects of European counter-radicalization policies, focusing, in particular, on Denmark’s Aarhus Model, France’s Centre de Prévention, d’Insertion et de Citoyenneté (CPIC), and the UK’s Prevent strategy. Adopting a qualitative collective case study design, this research consider the differences in the perspectives, processes, applications, and results of these programs. Key findings indicate that strategies centered around national identities—such as the UK’s Prevent strategy, often criticized as “England-centric,” and France’s CPIC, which is seen as nationalistic—not only violate human rights but also undermine their own objectives. These violations, paired with nationalistic rhetoric, contribute to reinforcing the extremist “us vs. them” narrative, leading to further radicalization among individuals subjected to these programs and the broader communities they target. The study highlights the need for more inclusive and human rights-centered approaches to counter-radicalization efforts.