(1) Speech given at a roundtable on: “The Consequences of the Attack on the US” (European University Institute, Florence, 26 September 2001; on file with the author). To be published in the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (forthcoming).Google Scholar

(2) Art.2, 4: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.Google Scholar

(3) Art. 42: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations”.Google Scholar

(4) Art.51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”Google Scholar

To be precise also Article 53 (Chapter VIII) of the UN Charter provides for a possible exception since it establishes: “The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council (…)”.Google Scholar

(5) Israel, in particular, always claimed to have a right to ‘anticipatory self-defense’ in order to avoid armed attacks by neighboring countries. However, the international community never acknowledged such a right.Google Scholar

(6) The Security Council has authorized the use of force in order: 1) to repel an armed attack (Korea, Kuwait); 2) to ensure strict implementation of economic measures previously adopted by the SC itself (Former Yugoslavia; Somalia; Haiti and many other cases); 3) to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations (Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda); 4) to restore peace and security after internal conflicts or disorders (Albania, East Timor) and also 5) to restore a democratically elected government pulled down by a military junta (Haiti). For a recent and detailed survey on on the authorization system, see Niels Blokker, Is the Authorization Authorized? Powers and Practice of the UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by ‘Coalitions of the Able and Willing‘, in EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 2000 (11), 541–68 (also available on-line at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol11/No3/index.html)Google Scholar

(7) See Simma, NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects, in 10 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1–22 (1999); Cassese, Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?, ibidem, 23–30 (both articles are available online at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/index.html). See also Cassese, A Follow-up: Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures and Opinio Necessitatis, in 10 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 791–800 (1999).Google Scholar

(8) Cassese, cited in footnote 1.Google Scholar

(9) SC res. 661, adopted on 6 August 1991.Google Scholar

(10) SC res.678, adopted on 29 November 1990.Google Scholar

(11) For a detailed description of the content of the right to self-defense, see Cassese, supra footnote 1.Google Scholar

(12) Were the International Criminal Court (ICC) already there, it could exercise its jurisdiction over these acts. In light of their gravity and of their characteristics, persons allegedly responsible for committing them could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity which, according to the definition contained in article 7 of the ICC Statute, include acts of murder when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.Google Scholar

(13) While concluding this article (28 September), the UNSC unanimously adopted a very important resolution (res. 1373). The SC reaffirmed that terrorist acts consitute a threat to international peace and security. It also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence. As reported in the SC press release (SC/7158): “Under terms of the text, the Council decided that all States should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the wilful provision or collection of funds for such acts. The funds, financial assets and economic resources of those who commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts and of persons and entities acting on behalf of terrorists should also be frozen without delay.Google Scholar

The Council also decided that States should prohibit their nationals or persons or entities in their territories from making funds, financial assets, economic resources, financial or other related services available to persons who commit or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts. States should also refrain from providing any form of support to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts; take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts; deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, commit terrorist acts and provide safe havens as well.Google Scholar

By other terms, the Council decided that all States should prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other countries and their citizens.Google Scholar

States should also ensure that anyone who has participated in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice. They should also ensure that terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the seriousness of such acts is duly reflected in sentences served.Google Scholar

By further terms, the Council decided that States should afford one another the greatest measure of assistance for criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts. States should also prevent the movement of terrorists or their groups by effective border controls as well.Google Scholar

Also by the text, the Council called on all States to intensify and accelerate the exchange of information regarding terrorist actions or movements; forged or falsified documents; traffic in arms and sensitive material; use of communications and technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction.Google Scholar

States were also called on to exchange information and cooperate to prevent and suppress terrorist acts and to take action against the perpetrators of such acts. States should become parties to, and fully implement as soon as possible, the relevant international conventions and protocols to combat terrorism.Google Scholar

By the text, before granting refugee status, all States should take appropriate measures to ensure that the asylum seekers had not planned, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts. Further, States should ensure that refugee status was not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation were not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.“ The Council also established a Committee of the Council to monitor the resolution's implementation and called on States to report within 90 days on actions taken to that end.Google Scholar