Legal Basis for the War in Afghanistan

Subject:

Comments:
: This is one of the most discussed questions in international law these days. Although there will always be differences of opinion, many international lawyers and scholars see a sound legal basis for the US action in Afghanistan -- at least for the time being. : While the UN Charter contains clear prohibitions on the use of force in most circumstances, two notable exceptions are: 1) the inherent right of self-defense as provided for under Article 51; and, 2) collective action authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. : In the case of the present US action, the applicability of Article 51 is not entirely clear. First, the inherent right of self-defense requires an "armed attack." Did the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 qualify as an armed attack? Probably so, in my opinion, even though it was carried out not by another nation-state but rather a terrorist group. However, Article 51 also limits the defensive action to such time as "the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." : Has the Security Council taken such action? This again is a matter of interpretation, but one can certainly find support for the claim that it has in its resolution of Sept. 12th (link to the full text of the resolution is available on both our home page and Documents Page). This resolution not only condemned the attacks but also called for the perpetrators and those who harbor them to be brought to justice. In addition, it called upon all UN members to cooperate in the suppression of terror. Finally, in the resolution the Security Council "expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist acts of 11, September." : The US and UK actions in Afghanistan have met with little resistance in the form of legal objection from other governments. Most noteworthy, NATO even invoked Article 5 of its Charter declaring the attack on the US to be an attack on all NATO members. This reflects strong political support for the action in law and policy. On the other hand, should the conflict continue much longer, or should the US seek to widen the military campaign to another country or countries (Iraq, for example) further Security Council authorization would likely be necessary to fit squarely within the requirements of international law. : The real weakness of international law in this conflict, as I see it, is its inability to adequately address the problems of asymmetric warfare. That is, a war between a nation-state and terrorist group as opposed to a war simply between two nation-states. In addition, has a country like Afghanistan that has given safe-harbor to a terrorist group surrendered its right to claim a violation of its sovereignty when military operations are conducted on its soil? Has it made itself a legitimate target of response? Some development of international law will be necessary to address these questions and the genuine threat of terrorism in the 21st Century. : Best of luck, : Howard S. Schiffman : Co-Founder and Administrator : www.InternationalLawHelp.com : : : can anyone tell me how the UN justified the US attacks on Afghanistan based on Internaitonal Law? I am for the attacks, but people who do not are pestering me to produce one. Is there?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: