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.

The articles and essays in this volume consider the problem of international terrorism from an international legal perspective. The articles address a range of issues starting with the dilemma of how to reach agreement on what constitutes terrorism and how to encapsulate this in a legitimate definition. The essays move on to examine the varied responses to terrorism by states and international organisations. These responses range from the suppression conventions of the Cold War, which were directed at criminalising and punishing various manifestations of terrorism, to more coercive, executive-led responses. Finally, the articles consider the role of the Security Council in developing legal regimes to combat terrorism, for example by the use of targeted sanctions, or by general legislative measures. An evaluation of the contribution of the sum of these measures to the goals of peace and security as embodied in the UN Charter is central to this collection.

As shown in the case of Attila the Hun, and his thirst for power, property, and personal prestige, nation states throughout the world, particularly in Asia and Europe, have, since ancient times, been vulnerable to invasion by other nation states and bands of looters from outside their borders. Terrorism’s progress into the modern day has caused extreme concern among members of the international community, who now accept that it is like a cancer that refuses to localize itself within any single organ of the body, but seeks to spread its lethality throughout, even if that means destroying itself along with the host. The fight against terrorism is long and complex, but the end is known in advance. Terrorists are defending a lost cause, and their defeat is inevitable, and democracy, freedom, and diplomacy will triumph.

Since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, the use of cross-border force has been frequent. This volume invites a range of experts to examine over sixty conflicts, from military interventions to targeted killings and hostage rescue operations, and to ask how powerful precedent can be in determining hostile encounters in international law.

This volume of essays examines the development of political and legal thinking regarding the use of force in international relations. It provides an analysis of the rules on the use of force in the political, normative and factual contexts within which they apply and assesses their content and relevance in the light of new challenges such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and cyber-attacks. The volume begins with an overview of the ancient and medieval concepts of war and the use of force and then concentrates on the contemporary legal framework regulating the use of force as moulded by the United Nations Charter and state practice. In this regard it discusses specific issues such as the use of force by way of self-defence, armed reprisals, forcible reactions to terrorism, the use of force in the cyberspace, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. This collection of previously published classic research articles is of interest to scholars and students of international law and international relations as well as practitioners in international law.

This is a valuable resource for all those interested in multinational efforts to combat the threat of global terrorism --Book Jacket.

Iz vsebine: 1. Samoobramba v obdobju pred Ligo narodov, 2. Dogovor Lige narodov, 3. Pariška pogodba, 4. 51. člen Listine Združenih narodov, 5. Individualna samoobramba, 6. Praksa kolektivne samoobrambe (s strani tretje države, regionalne organizacije, skupine držav s popolno odobritvijo Združenih narodov), sklepi: samoobramba kot poglavitna sestavina kolektivnega varnostnega sistema in kot oblika dela za pospeševanje mednarodnega miru.

The prohibition of the use of force is one of the most crucial elements of the international legal order. Our understanding of that rule was both advanced and challenged during the period commencing with the termination of the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait, and concluding with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The initial phase was characterized by hopes for a functioning collective security system administered by the United Nations as part of a New World Order. The liberation of Kuwait, in particular, was seen by some as a powerful vindication of the prohibition of the use of force and of the UN Security Council. However, the operation was not really conducted in accordance with the requirements for collective security established in the UN Charter. In a second phase, an international coalition launched a humanitarian intervention operation, first in the north of Iraq, and subsequently in the south. That episode is often seen as the fountainhead of the post-Cold War claim to a new legal justification for the use of force in circumstances of grave humanitarian emergency-a claim subsequent challenged during the armed action concerning Kosovo. There then followed repeated uses of force against Iraq in the context of the international campaign to remove its present or future weapons of mass destruction potential. Finally, the episode reached its controversial zenith with the full scale invasion of Iraq led by the US and the UK in 2003. This book analyzes these developments, and their impact on the rule prohibiting force in international relations, in a comprehensive and accessible way. It is the first to draw upon classified materials released by the UK Chilcot inquiry shedding light on the decision to go to war in 2003 and the role played by international law in that context.

This book explores the whole of the large and controversial subject of the use of force in international law; it examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the growing importance of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. Since the publication of the second edition of International Law and the Use of Force the law in this area has continued to undergo a fundamental reappraisal. Operation Enduring Freedom carries on against Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan six years after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Can this still be justified as self-defense in the 'war on terror'? Is there now a wide right of pre-emptive self-defense against armed attacks by non-state actors? The 2006 Israel/Lebanon conflict and the recent intervention of Ethiopia in Somalia raise questions about whether the 'war on terror' has brought major changes in the law on self-defense and on regime change. The 2003 invasion of Iraq gave rise to serious divisions between states as to the legality of this use of force and to talk of a crisis of collective security for the UN. In response the UN initiated major reports on the future of the Charter system; these rejected amendment of the Charter provisions on the use of force. They also rejected any right of pre-emptive self-defense. They advocated a 'responsibility to protect' in cases of genocide or massive violations of human rights; the events in Darfur show the practical difficulties with the implementation of such a duty.

The events of 11 September 2001 have led to significant developments in international law with respect to combating terrorism by military and non-military action. The volume addresses the issues raised in a comprehensive manner. It comprises country-reports with analyses of the developments in a number of selected countries. Based on these country-reports the volume traces new developments in the definition of international terrorism, deals with the issue of human rights protection under new anti-terrorist legislation and examines the recent developments towards international military action against terrorism.