A systematic account of the right to resist oppression and of the forms of armed force it can justify.

The responses of governments and international institutions to terrorism raise some of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. In particular, attempts to balance the desire to achieve security with the safeguarding of human rights and other aspects of the rule of law have proved to be highly contentious. This book is unique, not only in terms of its multinational, multidisciplinary nature, but also due to its truly comprehensive approach. It reviews, and examines, the interrelationship between the four principal elements of the international rule of law framework (international human rights, humanitarian, criminal, and refugee/asylum law) within in which counter-terrorism responses should occur. It focuses primarily on some of the most pressing, emerging, and/or under-researched issues and tensions. These include policy choices associated with meeting security imperatives; the tensions between the criminal justice, or preventive, approach to counter-terrorism and the military approach; the identification of lacunae within existing legal frameworks; and tensions between executive, judicial, and legislative responses. These matters are examined at the national, regional, and international levels. The book addresses a wide spectrum of issues, including analysis of key legal principles; emergency and executive measures; radicalization; governmental and institutional impunity; classification, administration and treatment of battlefield detainees; the use of lethal force ; forms of, and treatment in, detention;non-refoulement; diplomatic assurances; interrogation versus torture; extraordinary rendition; discrimination; justice and reparations for victims of terrorist attacks and security responses; (mis)use of military courts, commissions, and immigration tribunals; judicial and institutional developed and emerging rule of law norms on terrorism; non-judicial oversight by means of democratic accountability; and the identification and analysis of best practices, including inter-regional judicial and other forms of cooperation, and developed practices for the handling and use of sensitive information. Drawing together an impressive spectrum of legal and non-legal, national and institutional, practitioner, policy, and academic expertise, this book is an essential and comprehensive reference work on counter-terrorism policy, practice, and law-making.

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 examines the impact of counter-terrorism measures on specific elements of international human rights that are at the greatest risk of abuse in light of contemporary counter-terrorism measures, including the right to life; the right to free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to a fair trial; the right to privacy; and the right to liberty and security. Besides, for enrichment of discussions a number of cases have reviewed.

As nations have aggressively implemented a wide range of mechanisms to proactively curb potential threats terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Laws and Freedom of Expression: Global Perspectives offers critical insight into how counter-terrorism laws have adversely affected journalism practice, digital citizenship, privacy, online activism, and other forms of expression. While governments assert the need for such laws to protect national security, critics argue counter-terrorism laws are prone to be misappropriated by state actors who use such laws to quash political dissent, target journalists, and restrict other forms of citizen expression. The book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the politics and discourse of counter-terrorism laws. Part II focuses on the ways counter-terrorism laws have impacted journalistic practice in different countries, with effects ranging from imprisonment of reporters to self-censorship. Part III addresses how counter-terrorism laws have been used to target everyday citizens, social media activists, whistleblowers, and human rights advocates around the world. Together, the chapters address how counter-terrorism laws have undermined democratic values in both authoritarian and liberal political contexts. Scholars of political science, communication, and legal studies will find this book particularly interesting.

The words 'rebellion' and 'revolution' have gained renewed prominence in the vocabulary of world politics and so has the question of justifiable armed 'resistance'. In this book Christopher J. Finlay extends just war theory to provide a rigorous and systematic account of the right to resist oppression and of the forms of armed force it can justify. He specifies the circumstances in which rebels have the right to claim recognition as legitimate actors in revolutionary wars against domestic tyranny and injustice, and wars of liberation against wrongful foreign occupation and colonialism. Arguing that violence is permissible only in a narrow range of cases, Finlay shows that the rules of engagement vary during and between different conflicts and explores the potential for irregular tactics to become justifiable, such as non-uniformed guerrillas and civilian disguise, the assassination of political leaders and regime officials, and the waging of terrorist war against civilian targets.