Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:21:34.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello After September 11

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Steven R. Ratner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , October 2002 , pp. 905 - 921
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 UN Charter Arts. 2(4), 42,51; Weschler, Lawrence, International Humanitarian Law: An Overview, In The Crimes of War: What The Public Should Know 18 (Gutman, Roy & Rieff, David eds., 1999)Google Scholar.

2 Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks (Sept. 11, 2001), 37 Weekly Comp.Pres.Doc. 1301, 130] (Sept. 17,2001).

3 Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the United States Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 (Sept. 20, 2001), 37 Weekly Comp.Pres.Doc. 1347, 1349 (Sept. 24, 2001) [hereinafter Bush Sept. 20 speech].

4 Letter dated 7 October 2001 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2001/946, Reprinted in 40ILM 1281,1281 (2001) [hereinafter U.S. Letter to SC].

5 See, e.g., Jonathan, I. Charney, The Use of Force Against Terrorism and International Law, 95 AJIL 835 (2001)Google Scholar; Condorelli, Luigi, Les Attentats du 11 septembre el leurs suites: oú va le droit international? 105 Revue Générale de Droit International Public [RGDIP] 829 (2001)Google Scholar; Corten, Olivier & François, Dubuisson, Operation “liberié immuable”: Une extension abusive du concept de légitime défense, 106 RGDIP 51 (2002)Google Scholar; Marcelo, G. Kohen, The Use of Force by the United States After the End of the Cold War and Its Impact on International Law, in United States Hegemony and The Foundations of International Law (Byers, Michael & Nolte, Georg eds., forthcoming 2003)Google Scholar; Jordan, J. Paust, Use of Armed Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Beyond, 35 Cornell Int’l L.J. (forthcoming 2002)Google Scholar.

6 GA Res. 3314, annex, Art. 3(g), UN GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31, at 142,143, UN Doc. A/9631 (1974). The definition is nonetheless ambiguous in that these acts must still themselves be “in contravention of the Charter,” according to Article 2.

7 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14,103-04, para. 195 (June 27) [hereinafter Nicaragua].

8 Letter from Daniel Webster to Lord Ashburton (Aug. 6, 1842), quoted in 2 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law 412 (1906).

9 Compare Kohen, supra note 5 (once attack ends, self-defense is prohibited), with Thomas, M. Franck, Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense, 95 AJIL 839, 840 (2001)Google Scholar (Caroline applies only to anticipatory self-defense), and Michael Reisman, W., International Legal Responses to Terrorism, 22 Hous. J. Int’l L. 3, 46-47 (1999)Google Scholar (Caroline permits self-defense against state harboring terrorists if it is notified of potential terrorist action and fails to prevent it).

10 Nicaragua, 1986 ICJ Rep. at 62-65, paras. 110-15.

11 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Appeal of the Judgment, No. IT-94-1-A, para. 145 (July 15, 1999),38 ILM 1518, 1546 (1999).

12 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, 337, Arts. 8-9, 11, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter ILC Draft Articles].

13 See, e.g., Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Sept. 23, 1971, 24 UST 564, 974 UNTS 177.

14 See, e.g., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Inter-Am. Ct. Hum. Rts. (ser. C) No. 4 (1988); X and Y v. The Netherlands, 91 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 11 (1985).

15 It is barely worth a footnote to dismiss some academic perspectives that have suggested that the Bush doctrine implies that those states in which terrorists may act but which, despite bona fide law enforcement, are unable to prevent or punish those acts, are harboring terrorists. Although clearly the Bush proposal is vague at the margins, it has not endorsed such a view.

16 For a discussion of both areas, see Steven, R. Ratner, Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility, 111 Yale L.J. 443, 501-02 (2001)Google Scholar.

17 See Tadić, supra note 11, paras. 116-45.

18 SC Res. 1368, pmbl. (Sept. 12, 2001), 40 ILM 1277, 1277 (2001) (emphasis omitted).

19 Statement by the North Atlantic Council, Press Release (2001) 124 (Sept. 12, 2001), Reprinted in 40 ILM 1267,1267 (2001), available at <http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm>.

20 Statement by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson (Oct. 2, 2001), Reprinted in 40 ILM 1268 (2001), available at <http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/sw011002a.htm>.

21 Strengthening Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, pmbl. & para. 3, OAS Res. RC.23/RES. 1 /01 (Sept. 21, 2001), Reprinted in 40 ILM 1270 (2001). In a second resolution adopted that day, the ministers of foreign affairs, acting under the rubric of the Rio Treaty, called on all OAS states to “use all legally available measures to pursue, capture, extradite, and punish those individuals” involved in or harboring those involved in the September 11 attacks. Terrorist Threat to the Americas, para. 2, OAS Res. RC.24/RES.1/01 (Sept. 21, 2001), Reprinted in 40 ILM at 1273, 1274. Presumably, the OAS members did not see themselves as actively harboring the terrorists and thus did not contemplate any self-defense action against any Rio Treaty state.

22 Support for the Measures of Individual and Collective Self-Defense Established in Resolution RC.24/RES.1/01, para. 1, OAS Res. CS/TIAR/RES.l /01 (Oct. 16, 2001), available at <http://www.oas.org/oaspage/crisis/follow_e.htm>.

23 See Condorelli, supra note 5, at 840 (“bien rares sont les voix de haute responsables politiques ayant pris nettement position en faveur de l’idée que la légitime défense serait ici incorrectement invoquée”).

24 See, e.g., Iran Says US Attacks “Unacceptable, “BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 7, 2001, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File; North Korean TV Reports Foreign Ministry’s Remarks on US-Led Strikes, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 9, 2001, available in id.; Regional, Islamic World Reaction to Attacks on Afghanistan, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 9, 2001, available in id. (Sudan and Iraq).

25 Cuba’s Alarcon Calls for End to All State-Sponsored Terrorism, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 18, 2001, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File; Malaysia Premier Urges USA to Consider Stopping Attacks on Afghanistan, BBC; Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 12, 2001, available in id.; see also Vietnam: Party Daily Voices Concern over US-Led Attacks on Afghanistan, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 16, 2001, available in id.

26 Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Minister’s Interview, Dr. Kharrazí: If the US Was Really for Combating Terrorism, It Had to Pay Attention to What Iran Said (Oct. 18, 2001) (on file with author); see also Iranian Foreign Minister Holds News Conference on US Attacks, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 8, 2001, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (expressing “the hope that the aims of this attack are totally clear and rational and that no harm is inflicted on civilians”).

27 John, Ward Anderson, Iran Vows to Rescue U.S. Pilots Who Crash on Its Soil, Wash. Post, Oct. 18, 2001, at A25 Google Scholar.

28 See, e.g., 2001 ASEAN Declaration on Joint Action to Counter Terrorism (Nov. 5, 2001), available at <http://www.aseansec.org/archive.html>. In April 2002, the OIC’s foreign ministers, in their eleventh Extraordinary Session, issued a declaration “reject [ing] any unilateral action taken against any Islamic country under the pretext of combating international terrorism,” though this statement appears to have been directed at U.S. rhetoric regarding Iran and Iraq as members of an “axis of evil.” Kuala Lumpur Declaration on International Terrorism, para. 15 (Apr. 3, 2002), available at <http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/ll_extraordinary/declaration.htm>.

29 For a detailed defense of this approach, with other applications, see generally International Incidents: The Law That Counts in World Politics (W. Michael Reisman & Andrew R. Willard eds., 1988).

30 See Kohen, supra note 5.

31 See, e.g., Fisheries case (UK v. Nor.), 1951 ICJ Rep. 116, 139 (Dec. 18); 1 Oppenheim’s International Law 1194-95 (Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts eds., 9th ed. 1992).

32 U.S. Letter to SC, supra note 4, 40 ILM at 1281.

33 Bumiller, Elizabeth, Bush Offers Karzai Sympathy on Dead, N.Y. Times, July 6, 2002, at A1 Google Scholar.

34 White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing (Jan. 28, 2002), available at <http://www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01>.

35 White House Fact Sheet: Status of Detainees at Guantanamo (Feb. 7, 2002), at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/>.

36 U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Military Commission Order No. 1 (Mar. 21,2002), 41 ILM725 (2002), available at <http://defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf>.

37 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, Arts. 4-5, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. III].

38 Sullivan, Laura, U.S. Agrees to Extend Geneva Rules to Taliban; But U.S. Won’t Apply Rules to al-Qaida, Balto. Sun, Feb. 8, 2002, at 1A Google Scholar.

39 See International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War: Commentary 63 (Jean de Preuxed., 1960); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Dec. 12, 1977, Art. 44(4), 1125 UNTS 3 (denying POW status to combatants who do not carry their arms openly during each military engagement or during a deployment before an attack if visible by the adversary). For an academic endorsement of this interpretation, see Wedgwood, Ruth, Al Qaeda, Terrorism, and Military Commissions, 96 AJIL 328, 335-36 (2002)Google Scholar.

40 For a convincing critique of the position, see Aldrich, George, The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants, 96 AJIL 891 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 See, e.g., Filkins, Dexter, Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead, N.Y. Times, July 21, 2002, at A1 Google Scholar. For an earlier account, see Roberts, Adam, Counter-Terrorism, Armed Force, and the Laws of War, Survival, Spring 2002, at 7, 18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Shanker, Thorn & Katharine, A. Seelye, Behind-the-Scenes Clash Led Bush to Reverse Himself on Applying Geneva Conventions, N.Y. Times, Feb. 22, 2002, at A12 Google Scholar.

43 Combating Terrorism and Respect for Human Rights, Eur. Pari. Ass. Res. 1271, para. 8 (Jan. 24, 2002), available at <http://stars.coe.fr>.

44 See Miller, Marjorie, Red Cross and U.N. Leaders Call for Taliban and Al Qaeda Fighters Held at Guantanamo Bay to Be Treated as POWs, L.A. Times, Jan. 18, 2002, at A22 Google Scholar; Sengupta, Kim, Campaign Against Terrorism: American Forces ‘May Be Breaking POW Convention, ‘Independent, Jan. 14, 2002, at 9 Google Scholar, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File; see also Guantanamo Detainees Should Be Considered POWs: Switzerland, Agence France-Presse, Jan. 23, 2002, available in id.

45 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Request for Precautionary Measures, 41 ILM 532, 534 (2002); see also Response of the United States to Request for Precautionary Measures—Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Apr. 15, 2002), 41 ILM 1015 (2002).

46 See, e.g., Letter from Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (Jan. 28, 2002), available at <http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm>.

47 See André, Nollkaemper, On the Effectiveness of International Rules, 1992 Acta Politica 49, 52 Google Scholar.

48 Bush Sept. 20 speech, supra note 3, at 1349 (“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”).

49 Philippines: Arroyo Says Evidence Linking Bin-Ladin to US Attacks “Convincing, “BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Oct. 4,2001, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File; see also Robertson, supra note 20, at 1268 (claiming after U.S. briefing that Al Qaeda is “protected by the Taleban”).

50 Michael Reisman, W., The Concept and Functions of Soft Law in International Politics, in Essays in Honour of Judge Taslim Oiawale Ellas 135, 135-36 (Bello, E. & Ajibola, Bola eds., 1992)Google Scholar; see also Kenneth, W. Abbott & Duncan Snidal, Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, 54 Int’l Org. 421 (2001)Google Scholar (softness a function of obligation, precision, and delegation).

51 Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), Second Phase, 1970ICJRep. 4, 32 (Feb. 5); ILC Draft Articles, supra note 12, Art. 50(1) (a); Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc. S/25704, at 9 (1993) (on customary law status of Geneva Conventions); Jochen Abr. Frowein, Jus Cogens, in 3 Encyclopedia of Public International Law 65, 67 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1997).

52 Schauer, Frederick, Prescriptions in Three Dimensions, 82 Iowal. Rev. 911, 913 (1997)Google Scholar (“[T]he important dimension is not a dimension in which the opposite of particularity is generality, but rather one in which particularity is best seen as specificity or precision, and its opposite as vagueness”); see also Endicott, Timothy, Law Is Necessarily Vague, 7 Legal Theory 379 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 See-generally Law and Force in the New International Order 3-48 (Lori, F. Damrosch & David, J. Scheffer eds., 1991)Google Scholar (essays by Abram Chayes, W. Michael Reisman, and Rein Mullerson).

54 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), 1986 ICJ Rep. 554, 662 (Dec. 22) (Abi-Saab, J. ad hoc, sep. op.).

55 Cf. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, Art. 26, 1155 UNTS 331 (duty to perform treaties in good faith).

56 .Sec North Sea Continental Shelf (FRG/Den.; FRG/Neth.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3, 230-32 (Feb. 20) (Lachs, J., dissenting). Obviously, some customary law norms are quite clear, e.g., the immunity of sitting heads of states in the courts of other states. .Sec Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 14, 2002), 41 ILM 536 (2002).

57 Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 37, Art. 126.

58 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625, UN GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28, at 121, 122, UN Doc. A/8028 (1970).

59 Thomas, M. Franck, the Power of Legitimacy Among Nations 50-194 (1990)Google Scholar.

59 Robert, O. Keohane, International Relations and International Law: Two Optics, 38 Harv. Int’l L.J. 487, 490 (1997)Google Scholar. On the different views regarding the effects of régimes on state behavior, see Stephen, D. Krasncr, Structural Causes and Régime Consequences: Régimes as Intervening Variables, in International Régimes 1, 5–10 (Stephen, D. Krasner ed., 1983)Google Scholar.

61 Nollkaemper, supra note 47, at 55-56.

62 Scelle, Georges, Le Phénomène juridique du dédoublement fonctionnel, in Rechtfragen der Internationale Organisation 324 (1956)Google Scholar.

63 Shanker & Seelye, supra note 42. These two authors also point to the support of the Department of State for application of the Conventions, a position that stems as much from concern over adverse precedent as from a bureaucratic (and, to this author, highly necessary) orientation in favor of fidelity to treaties.

64 See Roberts, supra note 41, at 25-26.

65 U.S.-UK tensions over support for the Irish Republican Army from American quarters during its violent campaign against British rule demonstrate that broad harboring theories might have once been quite embarrassing to the United States.

66 U.S. Dep’t of State, Patterns of global Terrorism 2001, at 63 (2002), available at <http://wm.state.gov/s/ct> (listing seven state sponsors of terrorism).

67 Steven, Lee Myers, Putin Warns Georgia to Root out Chechen Rebels Within Its Borders or Face Attacks, N.Y. Times, Sept. 12, 2002, at B22 Google Scholar.

68 See, e.g., Anne-Marie, Slaughter, International Law in a World of Liberal States, 6 Eur. J. Int’l L. 503 (1995)Google Scholar.

69 Finnemore, Martha, National Interests in International Society 128-29 (1996)Google Scholar.

70 José, E. Alvarez, Do Liberal States Behave Better? A Critique of Slaughter’s Liberal Theory, 12 Eur. J. Int’l L. 183 (2001)Google Scholar (criticizing liberal approach for drawing this line).

71 Cf. Richard Falk, Appraising the War Against Afghanistan, available at <http://www.ssrc.org/septll> (“There were no credible alternatives to war . . .”) (visited Oct. 23, 2002).

72 .See Koskenniemi, Martti, Faith, Identity, and the Killing of the Innocent: International Lawyers and Nuclear Weapons, 10 Leiden J. Int’l L. 137, 153-62 (1997)Google Scholar.

73 Keohane, supra note 60, at 494-95. For one attempt at such empirical work, see Steven, R. Ratner, Does International Law Matter in Preventing Ethnic Conflict? 32 N.Y. U.J. Int’l L. & Pol. 591 (2000)Google Scholar (assessing persuasiveness of legal argumentation on minority rights by interviewing targets of it).

74 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union (Jan. 29, 2002), 38 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 133, 135 (Feb. 14, 2002).

75 Remarks by the President to Troops and Families of the 10th Mountain Division (July 19, 2002), 38 id. at 1228, 1231 (July 22, 2002) (“America must act against these terrible threats before they’re fully formed.”).

76 National Security Strategy of the United States 15 (Sept. 2002), available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf>. The document states:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. .. .

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries....

. . . .

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.... To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

77 SC Res. 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002).

78 See Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly (Sept. 12, 2002), 38 Weekly Comp. Pres.Doc. 1532 (Sept. 16, 2002) (“The Security Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable.”); see also Legal Authority for the Possible Use of Force Against Iraq, 92 ASIL Proc. 137-50 (1998) (remarks of then Deputy Legal Adviser Michael J. Matheson).