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.

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.

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.

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.

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

A former Marine judge advocate and legal counsel to General Colin Powell, James Terry explores the genesis of the United States approach to terror violence and the legal foundation for the nation’s response to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terry first reviews the entire spectrum of legal issues that arise before offering creative and practical legal and political solutions to counter terrorist activities. The author examines the development of rules of engagement and their application in the terrorist environment while differentiating the law of self-defense in this environment from more traditional conflicts. He also addresses the role of interrogation, and the line between harsh interrogation and torture, and the jurisdictional claims that arise. This volume examines a large number of topics related to the struggle and in a remarkably concise exploration, makes them understandable to experts in international law as well as those who do not have a strong background in the field. This text provides a serious but concise review of the legal issues in 20 interrelated chapters. All constitutional law scholars and political scientists will greatly benefit from reading this book. No other text offers such a comprehensive or detailed review of the issues arising from the war on terror.

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.