A military response has been a viable option for combating international terrorism in the past and it will continue to be an option in the future. Possible military actions range from rescuing hostages to neutralizing terrorist camps and making direct strikes against targets verified as the infrastructure for state-sponsored training and support complexes of complex groups. The military response is part of a larger strategy that seeks to maximize the risk of punishment for terrorists and their sponsors and supporters while minimizing their potential rewards. In this context military action must be consistent with international law. If states decide that all means are justified, then those acting to preserve the rule of law in the face of the terrorist threat will become indistinguishable from the evil they seek to undo. Colonel Erickson?s study presents an overview of international law directed at the issue of managing international terrorism. This study is thought provoking and provides the decision-maker with a useful tool. Of particular note is the checklist provided in appendix A that summarizes chapters 4-6. It behooves everyone dedicated to achieving a world free from terror to learn more of this phenomenon and how we can deal with it. Colonel Erickson?s study, for the first time and in one place, makes available a general survey of international law concerning this subject. I highly recommend his study. Robert W. Norris Major General, United States Air Force The Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force

Presents, for the first time, a general survey of international laws directed at the issue of managing international terrorism. Winner of the USAF Historical Foundation's Colonel James Cannell Memorial Award. Thought provoking!

The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism systematically integrates the substantial body of scholarship on terrorism and counterterrorism before and after 9/11. In doing so, it introduces scholars and practitioners to state of the art approaches, methods, and issues in studying and teaching these vital phenomena. This Handbook goes further than most existing collections by giving structure and direction to the fast-growing but somewhat disjointed field of terrorism studies. The volume locates terrorism within the wider spectrum of political violence instead of engaging in the widespread tendency towards treating terrorism as an exceptional act. Moreover, the volume makes a case for studying terrorism within its socio-historical context. Finally, the volume addresses the critique that the study of terrorism suffers from lack of theory by reviewing and extending the theoretical insights contributed by several fields - including political science, political economy, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, law, geography, and psychology. In doing so, the volume showcases the analytical advancements and reflects on the challenges that remain since the emergence of the field in the early 1970s.

Countries sponsoring and supporting terrorism impede the efforts of the United States and the international community to fight terrorism. Until states that support terrorism cease such sponsorship, they remain a critical foundation for terrorist groups and their operations. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the U.S. military's role in coercing states to cease their sponsorship of terrorism. Using game theory, this thesis analyzes the utility of military force against state-sponsored terrorism. It explains why past military responses did not pose a credible threat and were thus, an ineffective instrument of national power. It then examines how military force is employed in the current war on terrorism. The findings of this thesis suggest that the limited military strikes employed against states for their role in terrorist attacks prior to September 11, 2001, preconditioned the leaders of supportive states to believe U.S. leadership lacked commitment in its strategy to end state-sponsored terrorism. The findings also suggest the dramatic change in the United Stat method of employing its military forces against state sponsors of terrorism after September 11, 2001, created the credible, coercive military threat required to accomplish the U.S. national objective of ending state- sponsored terrorism.

U.S. counterterrorism operations rely on authorizations established in 2001 and 2002. This report surveys the debate over the requirements for a new congressional authorization for the use of military force against terrorist groups and examines the current terrorist challenge, the purposes and key elements of such legislation, and options for Congress.