We do not differentiate between those prepareed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa.

Osama bill Laden (2)

forward 11 September 2001, 2,938 bodys were killed in New York City and Washington, DC after members of an Islamic-based terrorist organization flew hijacked commercial airplanes into the fresh York World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon building) Another forty-four [i]role[/i]s were killed the same day in the Pennsylvania countryside after airplane passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 sought to abort a related terrorist hijacking whose apparent destination was Washington, DC (4) forward 13 October 2002, over 200 the public were killed in a Bali nightclub as a spring of the terrorist actions. (5) In the Philippines, violent terrorist attacks against civilians have become in the way that frequent as to seem routine. (6) And, in Kenya and Tanzania, civilians with no apparent relationship to U s foreign policy were killed by dint of persons who specifically conducted attacks with the intentions of altering U s foreign policy and killing "non-believers." (7)

These instances of terrorism directed primarily against civilians have renewed popular, legal and other scholarly debate regarding the parameters of use of force in as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but the international and domestic words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] followings For instance, in response to the 11 September 2001 attack forward the World Trade Center, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 1368 which recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the UN Charter. (8) Additionally, President George W Bush has advanced a doctrine of enemy status and state responsibility. (9) This doctrine, apparently loosely based forward a traditional law concept of "aiding and abetting", is summarized in President Bush's statement that the United States would consider as enemies "terrorists and those who harbor them." (10)

In addition to renewed debate forward the limits of use of force generally, there has emerg single regarding use of force in the international connection focusing on both the notions preemption and anticipatory self-defense In the face of mounting international religious-based terrorism and evolving plans to reckoner this threat, to a pressing question that has emerg in succession the world stage is whether anticipatory self-defense and preemption are legitimate international law concepts

This article analyzes the existing universals of the right of self-defense and preemption subject to international law. Part I quickly reviews the one and the other the evolution of warfare and the state of religious-based terrorism. The former instants a useful starting point for understanding customary international law and its subset generally referr to as "the laws and customs of war." Customary international law provides connection to the application and shortcomings of contemporary codified international law, and, therefore, wait ons an important heuristic function in understanding the international legal limits forward combating this increasingly frequent form of terrorism.

It is important to note that this article does not advocate a prototype of warfare that is either anti-Islamic or that would make use of counter-terrorist measures that do not comply with international law. Indeed, it reprobates any model that would do either. (11) There is no dispute, however, that members of religious-oriented terrorist assign places tos typically Islamic fundamentalist organizations, appear, in their rising prominence, to be eternally more willing to rely forward terrorist tactics, and to view their manner of moving as a new religious war. Because no international law doctrine exists in a vacuum, this section is important in understanding the limits to which the international nations may rejoin to the new terrorist threats.

In Part II, contemporary instruments of international law are examined. In particular, the two Article 51 of the UN Charter (13) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision, Nicaragua v United States, (14) are reviewed for their respective definitions of the right to self-defense The limitations represented therein are of particular importance because throughout time, technical innovations and other societal shifts have changed by what means war is fought, in a manner beyond what was envisioned when the UN Charter was adopted. This is particularly tree with honor to unconventional phenomena such as the impressed sign of terrorism analyzed in this article. Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter provides state signatories an "inherent" right of self-defense in answer to an "armed attack." (15) It allows member states a military-based self-defense in either their respective individual or collective capacities. (16) Also, although not overspreaded in detail, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter places limits in succession a state's ability to threaten the use of force against another state. (17)

While about prominent scholars of international law affirm that Article 51, like all articles in the UN Charter, is to be read narrowly, (18) it appears that the passing from hand to hand U.S. administration has departed from that view and has opt to adopt the doctrines of the two anticipatory self-defense and preemption. For instance, it may be argued that the post-11 September invasion into Afghanistan constituted an act of anticipatory self-defense while the decision to wage war in Iraq was more a matter of preemption. Examining the status or viability of these pair doctrines under international law is the tonic focus of this article, as well as understanding the distinctions and uses of each within the words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following of grappling with international religious-based terrorism, the newest threat to international peace and security.

...

Home