Terrorism War And International Law

This book analyzes the legality of the use of force by the US, the UK and their NATO allies against Afghanistan in 2001. The work challenges the main ground for resorting to force, namely, self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter, by examining each element of Article 51 that ought to have been satisfied in order to legitimise the use of force. It also examines the wider context, including comparable Security Council resolutions in historic situations as well as modern instances where force has been used, such as against Iraq in 2003 and against Lebanon in 2006. As well as making the case against the legality of the use of force, the book addresses wider questions such as the meaning of 'terrorism' in international law, the changing nature of conflict in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries including the impact of non-state actors and an overview of terrorism trends as well as the evolution of limitations on the resort to force from the League of Nations through to 2001. The book concludes with some insight into the possible future implications for the use of force by states, particularly when force is purportedly justified on the grounds of self-defence.

This book analyzes the legality of the use of force by the US, the UK and their NATO allies against Afghanistan in 2001. The work challenges the main ground for resorting to force, namely, self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter, by examining each element of Article 51 that ought to have been satisfied in order to legitimise the use of force. It also examines the wider context, including comparable Security Council resolutions in historic situations as well as modern instances where force has been used, such as against Iraq in 2003 and against Lebanon in 2006. As well as making the case against the legality of the use of force, the book addresses wider questions such as the meaning of 'terrorism' in international law, the changing nature of conflict in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries including the impact of non-state actors and an overview of terrorism trends as well as the evolution of limitations on the resort to force from the League of Nations through to 2001. The book concludes with some insight into the possible future implications for the use of force by states, particularly when force is purportedly justified on the grounds of self-defence.

This book examines the different ways in which the laws governing the use of force and the conduct of warfare have become subject to intense scrutiny and contestation since the initiation of the war on terror. Since the end of the Cold War, the nature of security challenges has changed radically and this change has been recognised by the UN, governments and academics around the world. The 911 attacks and the subsequent launch of the 'war on terror' added a new dimension to this debate on the nature and utility of international law due to the demands from some quarters for a change in the laws governing self-defence and humanitarian intervention. This book analyses the nature of these debates and focuses on key issues that have led to the unprecedented contemporary questioning of both the utility and composition of international law on the use of force as well as the practicability of using force, including handling of ‘prisoners’ and ‘security risks’. It also identifies the sources of division and addresses the capacities of security policy and international law to adapt to the changed international environment. This book will of much interest to students of international law, war and conflict studies, and IR and Security Studies in general.

A preliminary definition of international terrorism was agreed by the world community in 1937. Since then, a World War and the Cold War have made any such modern consensus impossible. In particular, the UN principles of equal rights and self-determination of `Peoples' have caused political and juridical confusion, in that liberation fighters who utilize terror methods as one tactic in an overall political strategy to achieve self-determination are frequently termed `terrorists', and are prosecuted as such. In order to regulate wars of self-determination under international law, and to control the means and methods of warfare utilized in them, international humanitarian law (IHL) was extended in 1977 to include armed conflicts for the right to self-determination `as enshrined in ... the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations'. Thus, acts of terrorism perpetrated during armed struggles for self-determination are separable from random acts of international violence and, when perpetrated by states or insurgent forces during wars of self-determination, may be prosecuted under IHL as war crimes. However, although states are obliged to seek out and prosecute the perpetrators of illicit acts of warfare, they rarely do so. Dr Chadwick argues that, should IHL be fully utilized during wars of self-determination, if only for purposes of guidance, the separability of illicit acts of war would enable the international community to reach consensus more easily in regard to a definition of terrorism in general, and a coordination of efforts to deter its occurrence.

“Professor Byers’s book goes to the heart of some of the most bitterly contested recent controversies about the International Rule of Law.” —Chris Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University International law governing the use of military force has been the subject of intense public debate. Under what conditions is it appropriate, or necessary, for a country to use force when diplomacy has failed? Michael Byers, a widely known world expert on international law, weighs these issues in War Law. Byers examines the history of armed conflict and international law through a series of case studies of past conflicts, ranging from the 1837 Caroline Incident to the abuse of detainees by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Byers explores the legal controversies that surrounded the 1999 and 2001 interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq; the development of international humanitarian law from the 1859 Battle of Solferino to the present; and the role of war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court. He also considers the unique influence of the United States in the evolution of this extremely controversial area of international law. War Law is neither a textbook nor a treatise, but a fascinating account of a highly controversial topic that is necessary reading for fans of military history and general readers alike. “Should be read, and pondered, by those who are seriously concerned with the legacy we will leave to future generations.” —Noam Chomsky

The acts of lawlessness committed on September 11, 2001 were followed by a 'war on terror'. This book sets out the essential features of the international legal framework against which the '9/11' attacks and the lawfulness of measures taken in response thereto fall to be assessed. It addresses, in an accessible manner, relevant law in relation to: 'terrorism', questions as to 'responsibility' for it, the criminal law framework, lawful constraints on the use of force, the humanitarian law that governs in armed conflict, and international human rights law. It indicates the existence of a legal framework capable of addressing events such as '9/11' and governing responses thereto. The author examines the compatibility of the 'war on terror' with this legal framework, and questions the implications for states responsible for violations, for third states and for the international rule of law.

Helen Duffy's analysis of international law and practice in relation to terrorism and counter-terrorism provides a framework for analysing the lawfulness of the many legislative, policy and judicial developments which have proliferated since 9/11. Among the many specific issues she addresses are targeted killings and the death of Osama bin Laden, detentions (including Guantanamo Bay), sanctions regimes, surveillance, extraordinary renditions, the prohibition on 'association' or 'support' for terrorism and the evolving preventive role of criminal law. She also considers the unfolding responses to political and judicial wrongs committed in the war on terror, such as the impact of the courts on human rights protection. While exploring areas of controversy, uncertainty and flux, she questions post-9/11 allegations of gaping holes, inadequacies or transformation in the international legal order and concludes by highlighting characteristics of the 'war on terror' and questioning its longer term implications.