InternationalLawHelp.com
The Sponsors
of InternationalLawHelp.com express our most solemn and sincere condolences to the
families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the
United States and all of
the many terror victims around the world including our close friends in the
United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, India and Spain.
We stand in solidarity with the victims and hope the discipline of international
law serves as an important tool to address global terrorism.
Terrorism
and International Law
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 have left the civilized world with profound questions as it confronts the challenges of terrorism. Some of these questions are political, some are military and still others arise from domestic and international law. For example, may any state try an alleged terrorist for terrorist-related crimes in its national courts? What is the status of a state that harbors a terrorist organization? What are the legal limitations of asymmetric warfare? May the families of terrorist victims sue terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them in US courts? Domestic legal systems and the discipline of international law will certainly need to evolve to address these issues in their modern context. The Sponsors of InternationalLawHelp offer this page as a resource to examine some of the international legal instruments, documents, resolutions and national laws that presently exist, and will be developed in the future, as the world responds to terrorism.
Some questions pertaining to historical precedents for military action against terrorists, action against states that harbor them and legal justifications for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been discussed on our Forum.
UN Treaties and Declarations on Terrorism:
Click here for a link to UN Treaties on Terrorism
Click here for a link to UN Declarations on Terrorism
Click here for the latest UN Developments Against Terrorism
Scholarly Analysis of Legal Issues Relating to Terrorism:
Click here for analysis by noted experts on the American Society of International Law Website
What
is an "Unlawful Combatant," and Why it Matters:
The Status Of Detained Al Qaeda And Taliban Fighters, by Professor Michael
C. Dorf (via
link to FindLaw.com)
Israel, India and the United States: A New Partnership Against Terrorism, by Thomas Neuman, Executive Director of JINSA (via link to JINSA website) (discussing the growing strategic partnership and commonality of interest of three states fighting terrorism)
US Legislation and Executive Orders Against International Terrorism:
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) *SPONSORS' NOTE -- the AEDPA statute authorizes lawsuits in US Courts against terrorist organizations. We expect this law will be applied in numerous cases following September 11, especially where US citizens are the targets of terrorist acts.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ("USA Patriot Act")(pdf document on INS Website) (Passed by Congress in the wake of Sept. 11)
President George W. Bush's Executive Order of November 13, 2001 re: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" (Authorizing use of military tribunals to try alleged terrorists)
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991, 18 U.S.C. 2333 (Authorizing civil lawsuits against terrorists on behalf of US nationals killed or injured by international terrorist acts -- allows for recovery of threefold damages and legal fees)
White House "Fact Sheet" on the Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees (Feb. 2002) (via link to White House website) (Addressing the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees)
Key US Supreme Court Decisions Applicable to Terrorism and War-Time Activities of Government:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (decided June 29, 2006) (via link to US Supreme Court website) (ruling that military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees exceeded President Bush's authority. The President must either seek the approval of Congress or offer those detainees rights consistent with the Geneva Conventions such as a classic court marshal)
Rasul v. Bush (decided June 28, 2004) (via link to FindLaw.com) (ruling that Guantanamo detainees have access to federal habeas corpus in US Courts to challenge their detentions)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (decided June 28, 2004) (via link to FindLaw.com) (ruling that US citizen captured on a foreign battlefield and designated as an "enemy combatant" has a right to habeas corpus to challenge his detention)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla (decided June 28, 2004) (via link to FindLaw.com) (unable to reach the question of whether or not US citizen captured on US soil and designated as an "enemy combatant" has a right to habeas corpus to challenge his detention because of jurisdictional grounds)
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (via link to FindLaw.com) (upholding the detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII)
Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (via link to FindLaw.com) (upholding use of military tribunals and denial of habeas corpus as against German saboteurs designated as unlawful combatants in WWII)
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) (via link to Cornell Legal Information Institute) (invalidating the use of military tribunals and denial of federal habeas corpus as applied to a civilian in area where civilian courts were open and federal authority uncontested)
Key Court of Appeals Decisions:
Padilla v. Hanft, (4th Circuit, 2005) (via link to FindLaw.com) (upholding the authority of the President to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant")
Ungar v. PLO, et al. (1st Circuit, 2005) (cert. denied Nov. 28, 2005) (via link to FindLaw.com) (upholding District Court decision denying sovereign immunity to PLO for terrorist attack in Israel that took the life of an American citizen)
Padilla v. Rumsfeld, (2d. Circuit, 2003) (via link to FindLaw website) (denying the right of the Secretary of Defense to indefinitely hold a US citizen, captured on US soil, as an "enemy combatant" and denied access to a lawyer). Dissenting opinion by Judge Wesley.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, (4th Circuit, 2003) (via link to Federal Court's website) (denying habeas corpus petition to US citizen detained as an "enemy combatant" because he was captured in a zone of active combat in foreign theatre of conflict)
Key US District Court Decisions:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, (District of Columbia, Judge James Robertson, 2004) (via link to District Court for District of Columbia website) (declaring military tribunals to try alleged terrorists, as presently constituted, to be a violation of the 3rd Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Ungar v. Palestinian Authority, (District of Rhode Island, Judge Lagueux, 2004) (via link to District of Rhode Island website) (granting default judgment against Hamas and awarding over $116 million in damages for terrorist killing of US citizen in Israel under Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991)