America’s attack has caused various debates among legal experts in relation to concerns on compliance with international standards. One of the main issues in this debate has revolved around whether or not a person has to strictly interpret the legal basis of the Charter or whether or not there can be a more lenient or flexible application of the rules in relation to the current changes in the global community (Bring and Fisher, 2004). The settlement of this debate has been based on a positivist approach to international law. This positivist approach points out that international law are standards which must be interpreted as set rules for similar scenarios, and therefore must be respected by all states. Another approach is the realistic approach which mandates international laws as a way of fulfilling goals and securing some values on the other (Sahmoudi, 2010). The positivist approach is supported by those who believe in the need to control expansion and the use of force and selfish interests (Crossley, 2008). The realistic approach theorists base their perceptions on concepts of human dignity; they justify the use of force as a means of confronting an evil power (Crossley, 2008). In the current context, this paper shall now consider the application of self-defence in the face of the present war against terrorism. Its legality and its appropriate applications shall be evaluated in this paper. Decisions of the International Court of Justice, as well as opinions rendered by legal scholars the court shall also be discussed.After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, the UN Security Council immediately passed a resolution which basically condemned the attack. The Security Council also reiterated its goal of opposing all threats on national and international security initiated by terrorist organizations (Berdal, 2003). It also acknowledged the right of states to collective self-defence in accordance with the principles of the Charter. In this resolution, the Security Council also expressed its readiness to carry out the necessary actions to counter the terrorist attack and to fight all kinds of terrorism in accordance with the concepts laid out in its Charter (Berdal, 2003). NATO Member states also decided to seek an application of Article V of its Statute and to declare the attack on the US as an assault
Armstrong, D., Farrell, T., & Lambert, H. 2007, International law and International Relations,
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Beard, J. 2002, America’s New War on Terror: The Case for Self-Defense Under International
Law, 25 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 559.
Berdal, M. 2003, The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable, 45 Survival 2: 7–30.
Boyle, A. & Chinkin, C. 2007, The Making of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University
Byers, M. 2002, Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September, 16 International Relations 2:155–170.
Byers, M. & Chesterman, S. 2002, Changing the Rules about Rules? Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention and the Future of International Law’ in J.L. Holzgrefe and Robert Keohane Humanitarian Intervention: Principles, Institutions and Change, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cassese, A. 2001, Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some, Crucial Legal Categories of International Law, 12 EUR. J. INT’L L. 993, 995-98
Crossley, N. 2008, Multilateralism versus unilateralism: the relevance of the United Nations in a unipolar world, London: Peter Lang.
Daley, S. 2001, For First Time, NATO Invokes Joint Defense Pact With US, New York Times A17
Garwood-Gowers, A. 2004, Self-defence against terrorism in the post-9/11 world, 4 QUTLJJ 2
Greig, G. 1991, Self-defence and the Security Council: What Does Article 51 Require?’,
40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly: 366.
Guiora, A. 2008, Anticipatory Self-Defence and International Law - A Re-Evaluation, University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, U of Utah Legal Studies Paper No. 057-08-10
Kirgis, F. 2001, Israel’s Intensified Military Campaign Against Terrorism, ASIL Insight, viewed 19 November 2011 from http://www.asil.org/insights.htm.
Mahmoudi, S. 2010, Self-Defence and International Terrorism, Stockholm Institute for Scandianvian Law, viewed 18 November 2011 from http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/48-13.pdf
Miller, S. 2002, Gambling on war: Force, order, and the implications of attacking Iraq. In C. Kaysen et al. (Eds.), War with Iraq: Costs, consequences, and alternatives, Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
O’Connell, M. 2002, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, viewed 18 November 2011 from
Popiel, M. 2010, Redrafting the right of self-defense in response to international terrorism, viewed 18 November 2011 from http://www.gonzagajil.org/pdf/volume6/Popiel/Popiel.pdf
Robbins, C. & Cummings, J. 2002, New Doctrine: How Bush Decided that Iraqs Hussein Must Be Ousted, Chilling Warnings in October Sparked Internal Debate on Preemptive Strategy, A “Dirty Bomb” Scare in D.C., WALL ST. J., A1.
Schachter, O. 1989, The Lawful Use of Force by a State against Terrorists in Another Country’, 19 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 209: 215–18
Schmemann, S. 2001, U.S. Attacked, Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and Hit Pentagon in Day of Terror, President Vows to Exact Punishment for "Evil," N.Y. TIMES, A1.
Shah, N. 2007, Self-defence, Anticipatory Self-defence and Pre-emption: International Laws Response to Terrorism, 12 J Conflict Security Law 1: 95-126.
Wren, C. 2001, US Advises UN Council More Strikes Could Come, New York Times, B5.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples