English
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 understandi
Sign in with your free account to read, download EPUBs or listen.
DTIC Archive · Schmitt, Michael N · GEORGE C MARSHALL CENTER UNIT 24502 APONEW YORK 09053 · *TERRORISTS · *WARFARE · *UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT · *ETHICS · *COUNTERTERRORISM · *INTERNATIONAL LAW · *AFGHANISTAN