Papers originally presented in a conference held at the Catholic University, Milan, on 10-11 May 2002.

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.

This book examines the attempts by the international community and the United Nations to define and criminalise terrorism. In doing so, it explores the difficult legal, ethical and philosophical questions involved in deciding when political violence is, or is not, permissible.

This book is a study of the future of international law as well as the future of the United Nations. It is the first study ever bringing together the laws, policies and practices of the UN for the protection of the earth, the oceans, outer space, human rights, victims of armed conflicts and of humanitarian emergencies, the poor, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged world-wide. It reviews unprecedented dangers and challenges facing humanity such as climate change and weapons of mass destruction, and argues that the international law of the future must become an international law of security and of protection. It submits that the concept of international security in the UN Charter can no longer be restricted to situations of armed conflict but must be given its natural meaning: whatever threatens the security of humanity. It calls for the Security Council to perform its role as the guardian of the security of humankind and sees a leadership role for the UN Secretary-General in analysing and presenting challenges of international security and protection to the Security Council for its attention. Written by a seasoned scholar / practitioner of international law and the United Nations, who has served in key policy, peacemaking, peacekeeping and human rights positions in the United Nations, this book offers indispensable new vistas of international law and policy, and the future role of the United Nations.

Selected from the papers presented at the twenty-third International Social Philosophy Conference held in July of 2006 at University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia --Preface.

The proliferation in terrorist activity has provoked an increase in the body of law, both at national and international level, which has sought to counter and prevent it. The bodies involved in this process range from the UN Security Council to government legislatures. This book is the first to address, in one volume, the wide variety of responses to terrorism as they exist in both international and domestic contexts. It also represents the first ever comprehensive collection of documents referring to terrorism which are to be found in the laws of the UK and France as well as in international law. Terrorism and International Law comprises contributions by thirteen well-known authorities in the areas of international, French and UK law, and is divided into four main sections: international cooperation against terrorism, the French and British responses to terrorism, the limits of state action and a documentary supplement. The contributors have sought to show how international and domestic law can be used together to combat the multi-faceted problems which terrorism raises. The issue of human rights is also discussed with particular reference to the jurisprudence of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights. The fourth documentary section of the book provides coverage of international treaties, UN resolutions, UK and French legislation, case-law and official statements relating to terrorism. This book provides an invaluable source of commentary and reference material in the area of terrorism and international and domestic law which will be useful for practitioners, diplomats, students and teachers.

Does the United States have the right to defend itself by striking first, or must it wait until an attack is in progress? Is the Bush Doctrine of aggressive preventive action a justified and legal recourse against threats posed by terrorists and rogue states? Tackling one of the most controversial policy issues of the post-September 11 world, Michael Doyle argues that neither the Bush Doctrine nor customary international law is capable of adequately responding to the pressing security threats of our times. In Striking First, Doyle shows how the Bush Doctrine has consistently disregarded a vital distinction in international law between acts of preemption in the face of imminent threats and those of prevention in the face of the growing offensive capability of an enemy. Taking a close look at the Iraq war, the 1998 attack against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other conflicts, he contends that international law must rely more completely on United Nations Charter procedures and develop clearer standards for dealing with lethal but not immediate threats. After explaining how the UN can again play an important role in enforcing international law and strengthening international guidelines for responding to threats, he describes the rare circumstances when unilateral action is indeed necessary. Based on the 2006 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, Striking First includes responses by distinguished political theorists Richard Tuck and Jeffrey McMahan and international law scholar Harold Koh, yielding a lively debate that will redefine how--and for what reasons--tomorrow's wars are fought.

After having ignored victims, only recently both domestic and international law have begun to pay attention to them. As a consequence, different international norms related to victims have progressively been introduced. These are norms generally characterized by a certain concept from the perspective of victims, as well as by the enumeration of a list of rights to which they are entitle to; rights upon which the international statute of victims is built. In reverse, these catalogues of rights are the states’ obligations. Most of these rights are already existent in the international law of human rights. Consequently, they are not new but consolidated rights. Others are strictly linked to victims, concerning the following categories: victims of crime, victims of abuse of power, victims of gross violations of international human rights law, victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law, victims of enforced disappearance, victims of violations of international criminal law and victims of terrorism.

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.

The Use of Force and International Law offers an authoritative overview of international law governing the resort to force. Looking through the prism of the contemporary challenges that this area of international law faces, including technology, sovereignty, actors, compliance and enforcement, this book addresses key aspects of international law in this area: the general breadth and scope of the prohibition of force, what is meant by 'force', the use of force through the UN and regional organisations, the use of force in peacekeeping operations, the right of self-defence and the customary limitations upon this right, forcible intervention in civil conflicts, the controversial doctrine of humanitarian intervention. Suitable for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students, academics and practitioners, The Use of Force and International Law offers a contemporary, comprehensive and accessible treatment of the subject.