The evolution of international law in light of the 'global War on Terror'

Review of International Studies

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1069-1094

  Heinze, Eric A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960264284     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: 14699044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210510001014     Document Type: Article

References (163)

1. for example, Martin Shaw, The New Western Way of War (London: Polity, 2005), p. 24.
2. Customary international law or 'international custom' is one of the primary sources of international law and is derived from the consistent practice of states over time who are under the belief that their behaviour is permitted or otherwise required by law. This psychological element - called opinio juris - must be present in order for state practice to count toward the development of international custom.
3. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 6-12.
4. Carsten Stahn, 'Terrorist Acts as "Armed Attack": The Right to Self-Defense, Article 51(1/2) of the UN Charter, and International Terrorism', Fletcher Forum on World Affairs, 27:2 (2003), pp. 35-54 (Pubitemid 36784129)
5. Mark A. Drumbl, 'Self-Defense and the Use of Force: Breaking the Rules, Making the Rules, or Both?', International Studies Perspectives, 4:4 (2003), pp. 409-31 (Pubitemid 37492109)
6. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Gregory A. Raymond, 'Preventive War and Permissive Normative Order', International Studies Perspectives, 4:4 (2003), pp. 385-94; (Pubitemid 37492108)
7. Thomas M. Franck, 'What Happens Now? The UN after Iraq', America Journal of International Law, 97:3 (2003), p. 619.
8. For a useful conceptual discussion of states as legal persons.
9. Harry D. Gould, 'International Criminal Bodies', Review of International Studies, 35:3 (2009), pp. 701-21.
10. Charter of the UN (hereafter UN Charter), Stat. 1031, 26 June 1945, Article 51.
11. This debate as outlined in Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 98-9.
12. Nico J. Schrijver, 'Responding to International Terrorism: Moving the Frontiers of International Law for "Enduring Freedom"', Netherlands International Law Review, 48 (2001), p. 285.
13. Stephen R. Ratner, 'Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello after September 11', American Journal of International Law, 96 (2002), p. 920.
14. Thomas Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 98.
15. For example, Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), p. 141.
16. Anthony Clark Arend, 'International Law and the Preemptive use of Military Force', The Washington Quarterly, 26:2 (2003), pp. 92-3, 96.
17. Destruction of the Caroline, in John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law, 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906), pp. 409-14.
18. Ibid., p. 412.
19. Sean D. Murphy, 'The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense', Villanova Law Review, 50 (2005), p. 704.
20. Jeffrey Record, 'The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq', Parameters, 33 (2003), pp. 7-9.
21. Franck, Recourse to Force, p. 107;
22. Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts (eds), Oppenheim's International Law, 9th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 412;
23. Michael Bothe, 'Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force', European Journal of International Law, 14 (2003), pp. 227, 238;
24. Murphy, 'Preepmtive Self-Defense', p. 748.
25. The National Security Strategy of the US of America (hereafter, NSS). September 2002. Available at: {http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf}.
26. 'President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point', White House News Release, Washington, DC (1 June 2002). Available at: {http://www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html}.
27. NSS, p. 6.
28. Ibid., p. 15.
29. 'President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech'.
30. Drumbl, 'Self-Defense and the Use of Force', p. 423.
31. John Yoo, 'International Law and the War in Iraq', American Journal of International Law, 97:3 (2003), pp. 563-76. (Pubitemid 37306316)
32. Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 4th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 294-300.
33. The discussion of these arguments in Drumbl, 'Self-Defense and the Use of Force', pp. 410-411.
34. Article 51 obliges states to report any self-defensive actions they take to the Security Council, with which states typically comply.
35. Gray, International Lawi, pp. 101-4.
36. Letter Dated 20 March 2003 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the UN addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/350, 21 March 2003. Letter Dated 20 March 2003 from the Permanent Representative of the US of America to the UN addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/351, 21 March 2003. Letter Dated 20 March 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Australia to the UN addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/352, 21 March 2003.
37. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Gregory A. Raymond, After Iraq: The Imperiled America Imperium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 67, 82, 101, 140.
38. Zbigniew Brzezinski, 'Terrorized by "War on Terror"', Washington Post (25 March 2007), B01.
39. Terry M. Neal, 'Bush Reverts to Liberal Rationale for Iraq War; Critics Still Oppose War Despite Hussein's Human Rights Record', Washington Post (9 July 2003);
40. Richard Falk, 'The Iraq War and the Future of International Law', Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (19 April 2004). Available at:{http://www.wagingpeace.org/ articles/2004/04/19-falk-iraq-war-law.htm};
41. Eric A. Heinze, 'Humanitarian Intervention and the War in Iraq: Norms, Discourse, and State Practice', Parameters, 36:1 (2006), pp. 20-35.
42. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, p. 6;
43. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Grotius Publications, Ltd, 1991), p. 70 (stating that 'It is how states behave in practice that forms the basis of customary law⋯').
44. Gray, International Law, pp. 130-3.
45. The official number officially supporting the war is difficult to establish. The US claimed over 40 states were prepared to go to war in support of the US effort, though other reports suggest figures closer to 30.
46. Steve Bowman, 'Iraq: Military Operations', in Amy V. Cardosa (ed.), Iraq at the Crossroads (Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers, 2006), pp. 137-55.
47. Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh, 'Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced? How the Bush Administration Influences Allies in the War in Iraq', Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC (26 February 2003), p. 8.
48. UNSC Resolution 1483, UN Doc. S/RES/1483, 22 May 2003, stating that it 'recogniz[es] the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states [the US and UK] as occupying powers under unified command.'
49. In addition to staunch opposition by important members of the UN Security Council at the time, namely France, Russia, China, and Germany, the leaders of 52 African states issued a statement opposing the war except as a last resort, and the 116 states that comprise the Non-Aligned Movement likewise issued a statement opposing the invasion.
50. Anderson, Bennis, and Cavanagh, 'Coalition of the Willing', p. 10.
51. Cited in Drumbl, 'Self-Defense and the Use of Force', p. 423.
52. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the US (hereafter '9/11 Commission Report') (New York: Norton, 2004), p. 66.
53. Eric P. J. Mjyer and Nigel D. White, 'The Twin Towers Attack: An Unlimited Right to Self-Defence?', Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 7:1 (2002), pp. 5-17;
54. Stahn, 'Terrorist Acts', p. 37;
55. Gray, International Law, p. 165;
56. Murphy, 'Preemptive Self-Defense', pp. 47-51;
57. Ratner, 'Jus ad Bellum', pp. 906-11.
58. George W. Bush, 'Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks', Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (14 September 2001), p. 1301.
59. Antonio Cassese, 'The International Community's "Legal" Response to Terrorism', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 38:3 (1989), p. 596.
60. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US of America), (Merits), Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. 14 (hereafter "Nicaragua"), para. 195.
61. While this is the standard for attribution commonly associated with Nicaragua, the Court here was using this test to determine whether war crimes committed by the contras could be attributed to the US. Nicaragua, para. 109.
62. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Rep. 131 (hereafter 'Wall'), para. 139;
63. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), (Merits) Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Rep 116 (hereafter 'DRC v. Uganda'), para, 146.
64. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereafter 'Draft Articles'), Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session (2001), Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1, Article 8.
65. 9/11 Commission Report, chaps 5, 7. Michael J. Glennon, 'The Fog of Law: Self-Defense, Inherence, and Incoherence in Article 51 of the UN Charter', Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 25:2 (2002), pp. 539-58;
66. John Quigley, 'The Afghanistan War and Self-Defense', Valparaiso University Law Review, 37:2 (2003), pp. 545-6
67. Mark A. Drumbl, 'Victimhood in Our Neighborhood: Terrorist Crime, Taliban Guilt, and the Asymmetries of the International Legal Order', North Carolina Law Review, 81:1 (2002), pp. 34-40.
68. UNSC Res. 1368, 12 September 2001, UN Doc. S/Res/1369;
69. UNSC Res. 1373, 28 September 2001, UN Doc. S/Res/1373.
70. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Statement by the North Atlantic Council, 12 September 2001, Press Release (2001)124, available at: {http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm}.
71. Organization of America States (OAS), Strengthening Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, 21 September 2001, OAS Res. RC.23/RES.1/01, para. 3.
72. Cited in Gray, International Law, p. 160.
73. Ratner, 'Jus ad Bellum', p. 910.
74. Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, pp. 206-7.
75. Oscar Schachter, 'The Lawful Use of Force by a State Against Terrorists in Another Country', in Yoram Dinstein and Mala Tabory (eds), Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 19 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1990), p. 218.
76. Gray, International Law, p. 111.
77. This argument is developed by Kimberly N. Trapp, 'Back to Basics: Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right of Self-Defense against Non-State Terrorist Actors', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56:1 (2007), p. 146.
78. Frederic L. Kirgis, 'Some Proportionality Issues Raised by Israel's Use of Armed Force in Lebanon', ASIL Insights, 10:20 (2006), available at: {http://www.asil.org:80/insights/2006/08/insights060817.html}.
79. Jonathan Somer, 'Acts of Non-State Armed Groups and the Law Governing Armed Conflict', ASIL Insights, 10:21 (2006), available at: {http://www.asil. org:80/insights/2006/08/insights060824.html}.
80. Trapp, 'Back to Basics', p. 142.
81. Nicaragua, para. 19.
82. DRC v. Uganda, paras 146, 147.
83. NATO, Statement by the North Atlantic Council.
84. Norman G. Printer, Jr., 'The Use of Force against Non-State Actors under International Law: An Analysis of the US Predator Strike in Yemen', UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 8 (2003), pp. 331-83.
85. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Pubic International Law, 5th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 64.
86. Printer, 'The use of Force', p. 334.
87. Stephanie A. Barbour and Zoe A. Salzman, '"The Tangled Web": The Right of Self-Defense against Non-State Actors in the Armed Activities Case', NYU Journal of International Law and Politics. 40 (2007-2008), p. 78.
88. DRC v. Uganda, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, para. 30.
89. DRC v. Uganda, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, para 11.
90. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, 'Principles on International Law on the Use of Force by States in Self-Defence', Chatham House, Royal Institute of International Affairs (October 2005), p. 11.
91. Stahn, 'Terrorist Acts', p. 45. As the ICJ held in Nicaragua, 'the prohibition of armed attacks may apply to the sending by a State of armed bands to the territory of another state, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack [⋯] had it been carried out by regular armed forces'.
92. Nicaragua, para. 195.
93. Barbour and Salzman, 'The Tangled Web', p. 84.
94. Ibid., pp. 94-101.
95. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereafter 'Third Geneva Convention'), 75 UNTS 135, 12 August 1949, Article 3 (hereafter 'Common Article 3');
96. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (hereafter 'Additional Protocol II');
97. 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977;
98. Lisabeth Zegveld, The Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 151.
99. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereafter 'Draft Articles'), Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session (2001), Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1, Article 10.
100. Common Article 3;
101. Additional Protocol II, Article 1(1);
102. Jean S. Pictet (ed.), Commentary IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (International Committee of the Red Cross: Geneva, 1958), pp. 34-5.
103. Common Article 3;
104. Additional Protocol II;
105. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para. 70.
106. George H. Aldrich, 'The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants', American Journal of International Law, 96:4 (2002), pp. 891-8; (Pubitemid 36136591)
107. Ratner, 'Jus ad Bellum', p. 905;
108. Yutaka Arai-Takahashi, 'Disentangling Legal Quagmires: The Legal Characterization of the Armed Conflicts in Afghanistan since 6/7 October 2001 and the Question of Prisoner of War Status', Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 5 (2002), pp. 61-105;
109. Marco Sassoli, 'Transnational Armed Groups and International Humanitarian Law', Harvard University Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Occasional Paper Series (Winter 2006), available at: {http://www.hpcrresearch. org/pdfs/OccasionalPaper6.pdf}.
110. Additional Protocol I, Article 1(4).
111. Zegveld, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups, p. 18.
112. The requirement is not that the group must actually comply with IHL to be considered a party to the conflict, just that it have the ability to do so.
113. Pictet (ed.), Commentary IV Geneva Convention, pp. 35-6;
114. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 'International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts', Geneva (December 2003), pp. 18-9;
115. Lindsay Moir, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 30-52.
116. Zegveld, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups, p. 136 fn. 8.
117. Additional Protocol II, Article 1(2).
118. Helen Duffy, The 'War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 254.
119. Christopher Greenwood, 'War, Terrorism, and International Law', Current Legal Problems, 56 (2003), p. 529.
120. Leslie C. Green, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 56.
121. Duffy, The 'War on Terror', p. 252.
122. Derek Jinks, 'September 11 and the Laws of War', Yale Journal of International Law, 28:1 (2003), p. 38.
123. Arai-Takahashi, 'Disentangling Legal Quagmires', p. 66.
124. Jinks, 'September 11', p. 34;
125. Curtis A. Bradley, 'The Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, and the Geneva Conventions', American Journal of International Law, 101:2 (2007), p. 323, fn. 6.
126. George W. Bush, 'Memorandum: Humane Treatment of Al-Qaeda and Taliban Detainees' (7 February 2007), available at: {http://www.pegc.us/archive/White- House/bush-memo-20020207-ed. pdf};
127. Jinks, 'September 11', pp. 33-5;
128. Bradley, 'The Military Commissions Act', p. 326.
129. Gruber, 'Who's afraid of Geneva Law', pp. 1023-4.
130. Bush, 'Memorandum: Humane Treatment', para. 2(c). The US is not a party to Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions.
131. Richard Waddington, 'Geneva Conventions Apply Even in Afghanistan - ICRC', Reuters (28 November 2001);
132. ICRC, 'International Humanitarian Law', pp. 7-8;
133. Silvia Borelli, 'Casting Light on the Legal Black Hole: International Law and Detentions Abroad in the "War on Terror"', International Review of the Red Cross, 857 (2005), p. 50;
134. Pictet (ed.), Commentary IV Geneva Convention, p. 51.
135. Sassoli, 'Transnational Armed Groups', p. 16.
136. Rasul v. Bush, 542 US 466 (2004);
137. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004);
138. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006);
139. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 US (2008).
140. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, pp. 66-67.
141. Zegveld, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups, p. 136.
142. Sassoli, 'Transnational Armed Groups', p. 12.
143. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, pp. 65-6. 'Since Hamdan was captured and detained incident to the conflict with al Qaeda and not the conflict with the Taliban [⋯]'.
144. Jinks, 'September 11', pp. 33-5.
145. Duffy, The 'War on Terror', pp. 250-55.
146. Zegveld, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups, p. 134;
147. ICRC, 'International Humanitarian Law', pp. 5-6.
148. ICRC, 'Armed Conflicts Linked to the Disintegration of State Structures', Preparatory Document Drafted by the ICRC for the First Periodical Meeting on International Humanitarian Law, Geneva (23 January 1998), p. 9.
149. Eric A. Heinze, 'Non-State Actors in the International Legal Order: The Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict and the Law of Self-Defense', Global Governance, 15:1 (2009), p. 100.
150. Vincent-Joël Proulx, 'Babysitting Terrorists: Should States be Strictly Liable for Failing to Prevent Transborder Attacks?', Berkeley Journal of International Law, 23:3 (2005), pp. 615-68.
151. Dinstein, War, Aggression, and Self-Defence, p. 245.
152. Zegveld, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups, p. 163.
153. Drumbl, 'Victimhood in Our Neighborhood', p. 49;
154. Printer, 'The Use of Force', p. 347.
155. Mary Ellen O'Connell, 'Enhancing the Status of Non-State Actors through a Global War on Terror?', Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 3 (2004-2005), pp. 435-58. (Pubitemid 40707226)
156. Mary Ellen O'Connell, 'Humanitarian Assistance in Non-International Armed Conflict: The Fourth Wave of Rights, Duties and Remedies', in Yoram Dinstein and Fania Domb (eds), Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 31 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002), pp. 183-217.
157. It is true that the leadership of Al-Qaeda has stated it wants to establish an Islamic caliphate - a state-like entity. However, Al-Qaeda has repeatedly rejected the legitimacy of the states system and the basic rules and norms upon which international society is founded.
158. Barak Mendelsohn, 'Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society meets the Al-Qaeda Network', Review of International Studies, 31:1 (2005), pp. 45-68. (Pubitemid 40180164)
159. Jordan J. Paust, 'The Reality of Private Rights, Duties, and Participation in the International Legal Process', Michigan Journal of International Law, 25 (2003-2004), pp. 1229-49;
160. Duncan B. Hollis, 'Why State Consent Still Matters: Non-State Actors, Treaties, and the Changing Sources of International Law', Berkeley Journal of International Law, 23 (2005), pp. 137-74; (Pubitemid 40881930)
161. Guido Acquaviva, 'Subjects of International Law: A Power-Based Analysis', Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 38 (2005), pp. 345-96;
162. Christina Ochoa, 'The Individual and Customary International Law Formation', Virginia Journal of International Law, 48:1 (2007-2008), pp. 119-86.
163. O'Connell, 'Enhancing the Status', pp. 457-8.