This book discusses the critical legal issues raised by the US responses to the terrorist threat, analyzing the actions taken by the Bush administration during the so-called "war on terrorism" and their compliance with international law. Thomas McDonnell highlights specific topics of legal interest including torture, extra-judicial detentions and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and examines them against the backdrop of terrorist movements which have plagued Britain and Russia. The book extrapolates from the actions of the USA, going on to look at the difficulties all modern democracies face in trying to combat international terrorism. This book demonstrates why current counter-terrorism practices and policies should be rejected, and new policies adopted that are compatible with international law. Written for students of law, academics and policy-makers, the volume demonstrates the dangers that breaking international law carries in the "war on terrorism".

Examines the legal and moral complexities democracies face when dealing with terrorism. This book is useful to students and teachers of law, political science, and philosophy, as well as to citizens and activists concerned with the impact of terrorism on civil liberties.

This book discusses the critical legal issues raised by the US responses to the terrorist threat, analyzing their compliance with international law. The book extrapolates from the actions of the USA, going on to look at the difficulties all modern democracies face in trying to combat international terrorism.

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 discusses the critical legal issues raised by the US responses to the terrorist threat, analyzing the actions taken by the Bush administration during the so-called "war on terrorism" and their compliance with international law. Thomas McDonnell highlights specific topics of legal interest including torture, extra-judicial detentions and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and examines them against the backdrop of terrorist movements which have plagued Britain and Russia. The book extrapolates from the actions of the USA, going on to look at the difficulties all modern democracies face in trying to combat international terrorism. This book demonstrates why current counter-terrorism practices and policies should be rejected, and new policies adopted that are compatible with international law. Written for students of law, academics and policy-makers, the volume demonstrates the dangers that breaking international law carries in the "war on terrorism".

Considerable attention is focused on the use of military force as a means of combating terrorism, whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere However, the more dominant means for combating terrorism worldwide lies in non-forcible measures undertaken by states. In this realm, states that might otherwise be inclined to pursue unilateral action, such as the United States, are forced to pursue cooperative strategies that rely considerably on international law and international institutions. This essay briefly assesses various non-military initiatives undertaken by the United States - including criminal litigation and the imposition of economic sanctions on states and terrorist groups - so as to consider the broader question of whether, and if so how, international law and institutions are conditioning the behaviour of the United States. It demonstrates that, for various issues, US policy-makers and courts use international law and institutions as a means of advancing US interests, and suggests that in doing so US behaviour is affected by the expectations of the global community as embodied in international legal norms.

This book reviews the war on terror since 9/11 from a human rights perspective.

Guidance for maintaining national security without abandoning the rule of law and our democratic values. In an age of global terrorism, can the pursuit of security be reconciled with liberal democratic values and legal principles? During its “global war on terrorism,” the Bush administration argued that the United States was in a new kind of conflict, one in which peacetime domestic law was irrelevant and international law inapplicable. From 2001 to 2009, the United States thus waged war on terrorism in a “no-law zone.” In Laws, Outlaws, and Terrorists, Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann reject the argument that traditional American values embodied in domestic and international law can be ignored in any sustainable effort to keep the United States safe from terrorism. They demonstrate that the costs are great and the benefits slight from separating security and the rule of law. They call for reasoned judgment instead of a wholesale abandonment of American values. They also argue that being open to negotiations and seeking to win the moral support of the communities from which the terrorists emerge are noncoercive strategies that must be included in any future efforts to reduce terrorism.

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.

In this paper, Michael Schmitt explores the legality of the attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the "jus ad bellum," that component of international law that governs when a State may resort to force as an instrument of national policy. Although States have conducted military counterterrorist operations in the past, the scale and scope of Operation Enduring Freedom may signal a sea change in strategies to defend against terrorism. This paper explores the normative limit on counterterrorist operations. Specifically, under what circumstances can a victim State react forcibly to an act of terrorism? Against whom? When? With what degree of severity? And for how long? The author contends that the attacks against Al Qaeda were legitimate exercises of the rights of individual and collective defense. They were necessary and proportional, and once the Taliban refused to comply with U.S. and United Nations demands to turn over the terrorists located in Afghanistan, it was legally appropriate for coalition forces to enter the country for the purpose of ending the ongoing Al Qaeda terrorist campaign. However, the attacks on the Taliban were less well grounded in traditional understandings of international law. Although the Taliban were clearly in violation of their legal obligation not to allow their territory to be used as a terrorist sanctuary, the author suggests that the degree and nature of the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda may not have been such that the September 11 attacks could be attributed to the Taliban, thereby disallowing strikes against them in self-defense under traditional understandings of international law. Were the attacks, therefore, illegal? Not necessarily. Over the past half-century the international community's understanding of the international law governing the use of force by States has been continuously evolving. The author presents criteria likely to drive future assessments of the legality of counterterrorist operatio7.