Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:04:31.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Right of Self-Defence and The “War on Terrorism” One Year after September 11

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Kirsten Schmalenbach

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon by three highjacked civilian airliners and the crash of a fourth in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 constitute without a doubt the high point of terrorist attacks on the United States to date. The terrorists’ methods, their destructive force and the attacks’ economic and political effects are all without precedent. After September 11, the organisation responsible was quickly identified, namely a terrorist group based in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, headed by a Saudi expatriate, Osama bin Laden. After a request for his extradition was denied by the ruling Taliban, the United States and the United Kingdom conducted airstrikes against targets in Afghanistan beginning on October 7. As soon as late November 2001, the Taliban's fate was sealed. The uninterrupted bombardment of the US Air Force helped the Northern Alliance gain decisive ground in its campaign against the regime. On December 15, 2001, the various Afghan opposition groups signed a treaty on the Petersberg near Bonn, Germany, that established an interim government. The government's establishment put an end to the Taliban's rule, but it did not put an end to international terrorism with its various goals and interwoven structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 9: Special issue - The War on Terror - One Year On , September 2002 , E10
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

See Schmalenbach, Kirsten, Der internationale Terrorismus, Ein Definitionsversuch, 42 NZWehrr 15 (2000).Google Scholar
See Responding to Terrorism: Crime, Punishment, and War, 115 Harvard Law Review, 1217, 1218 (2002).Google Scholar
UN Doc. S/PV 3245, p. 3 et seq. (27 June 1993).Google Scholar
See Schmalenbach, Kirsten, Die Beurteilung von grenzüberschreitenden Militäreinsätzen gegen den internationalen Terrorismus aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht, 42 NZWehrr 177 (2000).Google Scholar
Wilson, C. (USA), Sixth Committee, Opening Debate on Draft Convention for Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism, Press Release GA/L/3093, 25th Meeting (AM), November 11, 1998.Google Scholar
See Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force, p. 373; see generally Claus Kreß, Gewaltverbot und Selbstverteidigung nach der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen bei staatlicher Verwicklung in Gewaltakte, pp. 149 – 155.Google Scholar
For a different view see Sean D. Murphy, Terrorism and the Concept of “Armed Attack” in Article 51 on the U.N. Charter, 43 Harvard International Law Review 41, 50 (2002); Thomas M. Franck, Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense, 95 AJIL 839, 840.Google Scholar
Contra: Christian Tomuschat, Der 11. September 2001 und seine rechtlichen Konsequenzen, 28 EuGRZ 535, 540 (2001); Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 2. ed., p. 238.Google Scholar
Draft Article 4 on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), International Law Commission, UN-Doc A/54/19), Official Records of the General Assembly, 56th Session, Supplement No. 10 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/reports/2001/english/chp4.pdf).Google Scholar
Draft Article 8, supra HYPERLINKnote 9; see Gregory Townsend, State Responsibility of Acts of De Facto Agents, 4 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 635 (1980).Google Scholar
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3, 29, para. 58.Google Scholar
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, 64, para. 115.Google Scholar
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Appeals Chamber, Judgment, July 25, 1999, Procecutor v. Tadic, 38 ILM, 1518, para. 115 (1999).Google Scholar
Stephens Case, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 4, pp. 266 et seq.Google Scholar
Kenneth, P. Yeager Case, Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 1987, Vol. 4, pp. 92 et seq.Google Scholar
Turkey, Loizidou v., Judgment, December 18, 1996, para. 63, ECHR Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1996 VI, p. 2216, 2235, para. 56.Google Scholar
ICTY, supra note 13, para. 131 (1999); confirmed: ICTY Appeals Chamber, Judgment, February 20, 2001, Celebici Case, 40 ILM, 639, para. 13 et seq. (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Draft Article 11, supra note 9, Commentary, p. 121.HYPERLINKGoogle Scholar
GA-Resolution 3314 (XXIX), Official Records of the General Assembly, 29th Session, Supplement No. 19, UN-Doc A/9619.Google Scholar
Nicaragua v. United States of America, supra note 12, p. 116, para. 230.Google Scholar
Tomuschat, supra note 8, 542.Google Scholar
Albrecht Randelzhofer in Bruno Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, 1994, Article 51, para. 37; Schmalenbach, supra note 4, 181.Google Scholar
GA-Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970, United Nations Official Records, 25th Session, Supplement No. 28, UN-Doc A/8028.Google Scholar
Roberto Ago, Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980 II/1, p. 13, 70, para. 122.Google Scholar
SC-Resolution 1368 (2001), adopted by the Security Council at its 4370th Meeting, on 12 September 2001 (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2001).Google Scholar
See Michael Byers, Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September, 51 ICLQ 401 (2002).Google Scholar
SC-Resolution 1368 (2001), supra note 25, and SC-Resolution 1373 (2001), adopted the Security Council at its 4385th Meeting, on 28 September 2001 (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2001).Google Scholar
See Franck, , supra note 7, 840 (2001).Google Scholar
Murphy, , supra note 6, 48 – 49.Google Scholar
NATO Press Release - (2001) 124 - 12 September 2001Google Scholar
INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCEGoogle Scholar
Byers, , supra note 26, 409.Google Scholar
Murphy, , supra note 6, 47.Google Scholar
See the famous Caroline-Case: Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod Cases, 32 AJIL 83, 89 (1938).Google Scholar
See the Security Council's disapproving reaction to the Israeli bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq, SC-Resolution 488 of 19 June 1981 (Security Council Resolutions 1981).Google Scholar
Christopher Greenwood, International Law and the War Against Terrorism, 78 International Affairs 301, 310 (2002).Google Scholar
Contra: Franck, supra note 7, 840.Google Scholar
UN Doc S/2001/946 (http://www.un.int/usa/s-2001-946.htm).Google Scholar
SC Resolution-748 (1992) Security Council resolutions - 1992; see Michael Plachta, Lockerbie Case: The Role of the Security Council in the Enforcing of the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare, 12 EJIL, 125 (2001).Google Scholar
See also Chaney, Jonathan I., The Use of Force Against Terrorism and International Law, 95 AJIL 835, 838 (2001).Google Scholar
supra note 38HYPERLINK.Google Scholar