Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface to the second edition
- Preface to first edition
- Select table of cases
- Select table of treaties
- Select Table of resolutions, reports and other sources
- Select list of abbreviations and acronyms
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Terrorism and responsibility
- 2 ‘Terrorism’ in international law
- 3 International responsibility, terrorism and counter-terrorism
- Part II Responding to terrorism: legal framework and practice
- Part III Case Studies
- Select bibliography
- Index
- References
3 - International responsibility, terrorism and counter-terrorism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface to the second edition
- Preface to first edition
- Select table of cases
- Select table of treaties
- Select Table of resolutions, reports and other sources
- Select list of abbreviations and acronyms
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Terrorism and responsibility
- 2 ‘Terrorism’ in international law
- 3 International responsibility, terrorism and counter-terrorism
- Part II Responding to terrorism: legal framework and practice
- Part III Case Studies
- Select bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
The question of responsibility for acts of international terrorism, or responses to international terrorism, has permeated discussion since 9/11. Was a state responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or for acts of international terrorism since then, and according to what legal standard? To what extent do the permissible responses, including the resort to armed force, depend on responsibility? Questions regarding state responsibility for terrorism have arisen to similar effect in many other contexts, before and after 9/11, such as in relation to the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Harari, the Lockerbie bombing or, more recently, in the context of allegations of Iranian involvement in attempts on US territory and beyond.
In addition to questions of state responsibility for terrorism itself are others concerning counter-terrorism: in the context of multi-faceted inter-state cooperation post-9/11, in what circumstances are states responsible in connection with wrongs by other states, or by private security companies carrying out security or counter-terrorism measures at the behest of the state? While the focus of this chapter is on state responsibility, fundamental questions also arise regarding those individuals and entities accused of being engaged in terrorism: to what extent can al Qaeda, or associated entities or individuals, be considered responsible under international law?
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The ‘War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law , pp. 75 - 116Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
, ‘Holding States Responsible for Terrorism before the International Court of Justice’, 3(2) (2012) Journal of International Dispute Settlement279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Report of the ILC on the work of its 53rd session, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001) Chapter IV, pp. 59–365
, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar
and , ‘“Primary” and “Secondary” Rules in the Law of State Responsibility: Categorizing International Obligations’, 16 (1985) NYIL81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility: Oxford Commentaries on International Law (Oxford, 2010)CrossRef
, ‘Concurrence between Individual Responsibility and State Responsibility in International Law’, 52 (2003) International and Comparative Law Quarterly615–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility (Portland, OR, 2006), pp. 156Google Scholar
and (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law (Oxford, 2008), 9th edn, pp. 502–3
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania) (Merits), ICJ Rep. 1949, p. 4
, Failing States: A Global Responsibility, Advisory Report No. 35, May 2004, p. 59
Dutch AIV Report 2004
, ‘Standards of Proof in Forcible Responses to Terrorism’, 50 (2000) Syracuse Law Review249Google Scholar
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits), ICJ Rep. 1986, p. 14
, ‘Terrorism, International Law and the Use of Military Force’, 18 (2000) Wisconsin International Law Journal145 at 265Google Scholar
, ‘Nicaragua is Dead, Long Live Nicaragua’, in , , and (eds.), Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security versus Liberty (Berlin, 2004), pp. 827–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genocide case: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serbia & Montenegro) (hereinafter, ‘ICJ Genocide case’), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Rep. 2007, p. 91
See Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94–1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 15 July 1999
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Teheran (United States v. Iran), ICJ Rep. 1980, p. 3
, ‘Comments on the Presentation by Nico Krisch and Carsten Stahn’, in , Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility (Portland, OR, 2006), p. 225Google Scholar
, ‘The International Community’s “Legal” Response to Terrorism’, 38 (1989) ICLQ589 at 599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Does the Anti-Terror Bill Go Too Far? No: We Need Powerful New Legal Tools to Fight the New Global Terror Threat’, Globe and Mail, 20 November 2001Google Scholar
, Indirect Responsibility for Terrorism Acts: Redefinition of the Concept of Terrorism Beyond Violent Acts (Leiden, 2010), pp. 393Google Scholar
, ‘State Responsibility for Acts of Private Armed Groups’, 4 (2003) Chicago Journal of International Law83, 85Google Scholar
, ‘State Responsibility for Violations of International Humanitarian Law’, 84 (2002) JRRC401Google Scholar
‘Qaeda Had Targeted Congress and CIA, Panel Finds’, International Herald Tribune, June 17, 2004
, ‘International Law and the “War against Terrorism”’, 78 (2002) International Affairs301 at 311–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Legitimate Use of Military Force Against State-Sponsored International Terrorism (Montgomery, AL, 1989)Google Scholar
, ‘“Sovereignty vs. Suffering?” Re-Examining Sovereignty and Human Rights through the Lens of Iraq’, 13 (2002) EJIL243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘International Law and the War on Terrorism: The Road Ahead’, 32 (2002) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights117Google Scholar
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion, ICL Rep., 21 June 1971
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. 136, 9 July 2004
Barcelona Traction case (Belgium v. Spain) (Second Phase) 1970 ICJ Rep. 3 at para. 33
, ‘State Centrism, International Law and the Anxieties of Influence’, 19 (2006) Leiden Journal of International Law339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.), Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges (Cambridge, 2013), Ch. 1CrossRef
Trials of German Major War Criminals: Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, Part 22 (London, 1950), p. 447
, ‘Article 25. Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Baden-Baden, 1999), pp. 475 ff. at p. 478Google Scholar
‘Relevance of International Humanitarian Law to Non-State Actors’, 27 (2003) Bruges Collegium, available at: , last visited 5 May 2013
, ‘Binding Armed Opposition Groups through Humanitarian Treaty Law and Customary Law’, 27 (2003) Bruges Collegium123, available at: Google Scholar
Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras (Merits), Judgment, 29 July 1988
, ‘The Universal Declaration at 50 and the Challenge of Global Markets’, 25 (1999) Brooklyn Journal of International Law25 at 25Google Scholar
Sadiq Shek Elmi v. Australia, CAT, Comm. No. 120/1998, Views of 25 May 1999
, ‘Current Developments: The Fifty-Seventh Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights’, 96 (2002) AJIL181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Detention as a Response to Terrorism’, in , and (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012)Google Scholar
, ‘Speaking Law to Power: The War Against Terrorism and Human Rights’, 14 (2003) EJIL241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Punishment of Non-State Actors in Non-International Armed Conflict’, 26 (2003) Fordham International Law Journal907 at 932–3Google Scholar
and , ‘National Security Inc.’, in ‘Top Secret America: A Washington Post Investigation’, The Washington Post, July 20, 2010, available at: Google Scholar
, ‘Implausible Deniability: State Responsibility for the Acts of Private Military Firms’, 24 (2009) Connecticut Journal of International Law239Google Scholar
, ‘US Military in Torture Scandal: Use of Private Contractors in Iraqi Jail Interrogations Highlighted by Inquiry into Abuse of Prisoners’, Guardian, 30 April 2004, available at: Google Scholar
, ‘Iraqis Angered as Blackwater Charges Dropped’, The New York Times, January 1, 2010 at: Google Scholar
, ‘Privatized Sovereign Performance: Regulating in the “Gap” between Security and Human Rights?’, 38 (2011) Journal of Law and Society96 at 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Passing the Buck: State Responsibility for Private Military Companies’, 19 (2008) EJIL989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Commentaries (2002)
, ‘Iraq–Terrorism Link Continues to Be Problematic’, Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2003Google Scholar