This book focuses on individuals' acts perceived as international terrorism and on states' acts perceived as state support, emphasising on the legal aspects of military responses and discussing political, economic, and cultural dimensions as they bear on the feasibility of the possible response.

The rules of state responsibility have an important but under-utilized role to play in the terrorism context. They determine both whether a breach of primary obligations has occurred, through the rules of attribution, and the consequences which flow from that breach, including the possible adoption of responsive measures by injured states. This book explores the substantive international legal obligations and rules of state responsibility applicable to international terrorism and examines the problems and prospects for effectively holding states responsible for internationally wrongful acts related to terrorism. In particular, it analyses the way in which the implementation of state responsibility for international terrorism may be affected by the self-determination debate, any applicable lex specialis (including the jus in bello), and sub-systems of international law (such as the WTO-), as well as the interaction between determinations of individual criminal responsibility and the implementation of state responsibility. The international community has responded to the threat of international terrorism both through a security/jus ad bellum paradigm and by creating an international criminal law framework to address the conduct of non-state terrorist actors. The secondary rules of state responsibility analysed in this book cut across both approaches as they apply, whether states breaching their primary obligations relating to terrorism through participation in or a failure to prevent or punish terrorism. While this book identifies a number of problems in implementing state responsibility for international terrorism, it also highlights the prospects for the rules of state responsibility to make a crucial contribution to maintaining respect for obligations which lie at the very foundations of the contemporary international legal order, and to restoring the relationships between states if those obligations are breached.

In 1979, several world reknowned politicians, ambassadors, academicians, and journalists met at the Jerusalem Conference on Terrorism to discuss the origins, nature, and future of terrorism and to propose measures for combatting and defeating the international terror movements. This conference marked a turning point in the world's understanding of the problem of terrorism and what has to be done about it. This excellent collection of articles expressing a broad range of political opinion on terrorism makes available for the first time the contents of that conference.

The enormous potential for destruction that lies latent in nuclear technology inevitably gives rise to the possibility of nuclear terrorism—the use of nuclear explosives or radioactivity by insurgent groups. Professor Beres considers the factors that might foster such terrorism, the forms it might take, and the probable consequences of each form. He then identifies a coherent strategy of counternuclear terrorism, one that embraces both technological and behavioral measures, that suggests policies for deterrence and situation management on both national and international levels, and that points toward a major refashioning of world order.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, the US response and the international community's approval of the subsequent military action represent a new paradigm in the international law relating to the use of force. Previously, acts of terrorism were seen as criminal acts carried out by private, non-governmental entities. In contrast, the September 11 attacks were regarded as an act of war which marked a turning point in international relations and law. This exceptional and timely volume examines the use of force in the war against terror. The work is based on the central theme that the use of force is visibly enrolled in a process of change and it evaluates this within the framework of the uncertainty and indeterminacy of the UN Charter regime. The status of pre-emptive self-defence in international law and how it applies to US policy towards rogue states is examined along with the use of military force, including regime change, as an acceptable trend in the fight against state-sponsored terrorism.