The Anticipatory Self Defence of the Usa Against Terrorists International Law Essay
- Submitted by: hwex
- Views: 128
- Category: Politics
- Date Submitted: 07/13/2015 03:20 AM
- Pages: 6
- Report this Essay
Introduction
The United States of America has suffered various terrorist actions over the last three decades . A
more recent issue and more important event is the September 11 attack or (9/11), which has raised
many issues in the area of international law because the U.S.A and its allies have started their
campaign in the 'War on Terror'. This campaign has been considered by the US as a case of war, which
includes military force and, as the UK government has also stated, political and financial
measures. The U.S.A has justified the war on terror as being in self-defense, a contention which has
raised many controversial points about the right of self-defense. There are many arguments about the
use of force based upon the right of self- defense; the con argument relies on the Nicaragua case and
Article 51 of the UN Charter , and does not justify the use of force in the war on terror because that it
may violate the Geneva Conventions regarding the peace and the sovereignty of states . Whereas the
pro argument for exercising the right of anticipatory self-defense relies on the Caroline case and the
weakness of the international law, and thereby attempts to justify the use of force in the war on terror.
However, this paper will attempt to find the connection between the pro and con arguments to figure out
the legality of the war on terror by examining the two sides' justifications - such as the Caroline and
Nicaragua Cases.SIEMENS2010-08-31T07:31:00
Insert Citation into footnote for all cases including page number if necessary if you are quoting from it
Article 51 of the UN Charter states that:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense 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.
According to Article 51, the state under attack has the right to defend its territory...
The United States of America has suffered various terrorist actions over the last three decades . A
more recent issue and more important event is the September 11 attack or (9/11), which has raised
many issues in the area of international law because the U.S.A and its allies have started their
campaign in the 'War on Terror'. This campaign has been considered by the US as a case of war, which
includes military force and, as the UK government has also stated, political and financial
measures. The U.S.A has justified the war on terror as being in self-defense, a contention which has
raised many controversial points about the right of self-defense. There are many arguments about the
use of force based upon the right of self- defense; the con argument relies on the Nicaragua case and
Article 51 of the UN Charter , and does not justify the use of force in the war on terror because that it
may violate the Geneva Conventions regarding the peace and the sovereignty of states . Whereas the
pro argument for exercising the right of anticipatory self-defense relies on the Caroline case and the
weakness of the international law, and thereby attempts to justify the use of force in the war on terror.
However, this paper will attempt to find the connection between the pro and con arguments to figure out
the legality of the war on terror by examining the two sides' justifications - such as the Caroline and
Nicaragua Cases.SIEMENS2010-08-31T07:31:00
Insert Citation into footnote for all cases including page number if necessary if you are quoting from it
Article 51 of the UN Charter states that:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense 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.
According to Article 51, the state under attack has the right to defend its territory...