Reappraising the Resort to Force: International Law, Jus Ad Bellum and the War on Terror

ISBN-13: 9781849462150 / Angielski / Miękka / 2011 / 192 str.

Moir, Lindsay

Opis

A number of commentators assert that the military response to the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 (the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the commonly referred to 'war on terror') has significantly impacted the international law regulating resort to armed force by States (jus ad bellum), loosening the constraints on self-defense. Some even suggest that the very future of the United Nations - in particular, the Security Council and its collective security system - is at risk, at least in its current form. This book does not address the question of the future of the United Nations, an issue probably best left to scholars of international relations. Instead, it seeks to place the 'war on terror' within the context of international law, assessing how, or whether, it can be accommodated within the existing legal framework limiting the use of force. Now available in paperback, Reappraising the Resort to Force examines of the lawfulness of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the legal justifications advanced by the States involved and the reaction of the international community. It also looks at the permissibility of self-defense against non-State terrorist actors and the 'Bush doctrine' of preemptive self-defense against terrorists as proclaimed in the 2002 US National Security Strategy. It determines whether, and to what extent, the right to use force - or the acceptability of such military action - is currently undergoing a radical transformation. It also assesses the subsequent developments that illustrate the impact military action against Afghanistan and Iraq has had on the jus ad bellum.

Spis treści

Introduction 1: General Legal Framework 1945-2001: The UN Charter Paradigm and the Jus ad Bellum I. The Prohibition of the Use of Force II. The Use of Force in Self-Defence A. Anticipatory Self-Defence B. The Definition of 'Armed Attack' and Self-Defence against Non-State Actors III. Security Council Authorisation 2: Military Action Against Afghanistan, 2001: Operation Enduring Freedom I. Was there an Armed Attack on the United States? II. Was the Response Necessary? A. Was the Attack Over? B. Was the State of Afghanistan a Legitimate Target? III. Was the Response Proportionate? 3: Military Action Against Iraq, 2003: Operation Iraqi Freedom I. Was the Action Taken in Self-Defence? II. Was the Action Authorised by the Security Council? A. Was Military Action Authorised by Resolution 1441? B. Was Military Action Authorised as a Lawful Response to the Violation of the Ceasefire Agreement? 4: Reappraising the Resort to Force? Jus ad Bellum in the Post-9/11 World I. International Court of Justice Jurisprudence A. The Oil Platforms Case B. The Palestinian Wall Advisory Opinion C. The Armed Activities Case II. State Practice A. Israeli Military Operations in Lebanon and Syria B. Russian Military Operations in Georgia C. Ethiopian Military Operations in Somalia III. A Reappraisal