Can International Law Deal With the Threat From Terrorism?

YES: “Violence and Justice in a Global Age” by David Held

Tutorial 6

Kristi Ambrose

 

Summary

¨      On September 11, terrorism became a fear that struck closer to home (before it had been considered a foreign problem we would never have to deal with)

¨      The war on terrorism is a war on an “invisible enemy with no obvious battle lines”. It is unfamiliar territory and we are unsure how to fight it

¨      Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant said: “We are all unavoidably side by side” and these words still apply today. One state’s actions will influence and have an impact on other states and the rest of the world. We are linked by not only violent acts but by smaller issues like genetic engineering and environmental degradation that we all have to face. This allows us to identify with everyone a lot better.

¨      September 11th is an event that concerns us all because it was an attack on the fundamental principles of our society: freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and justice and we must take some action in response to defend these principles.

¨      These principles aren’t only a part of the western world; they are the basis of any fair, humane, and decent society, of whatever religion or cultural tradition.

¨      A desire for vengeance is a natural response to 9/11 but any response must be carefully thought out, we cannot act impulsively. Any response must be consistent with our principles of security, law, and justice. We must reflect and not jump to any conclusions or make rash decisions. If we contradict our principles, we will be stepping away from world security and order instead of working towards it.

¨      We cannot have a complacent attitude towards terrorism. We have to take a strong stance against it and bring to account terrorists as well as anyone protecting or helping them.

¨      An International Commission on Global Terrorism is needed. It would resemble the Tokyo and Nuremberg war trials and would operate under a re-energized United Nations. It would be given the power to investigate and punish terrorists and impose political, economic, and military sanctions

¨      We must be tough “not just on crime but on the causes of crime.” We should take a look at the bigger picture or else we won’t be able to solve the smaller issue. (Ex. We cannot control suicide bombers on an individual basis but if we bring peace and stability to the region, the bombers will have no reason for their attacks)

¨      We must focus on righting the wrongs in all aspects of life, not only security, or else we won’t succeed in our endeavours.

Glossary

 

Terrorism: a special form of violence that has been used by both states and non-state organizations to achieve a variety of political purposes, often involve attacks against random civilians and targets with high symbolic value (This is what we as a global community are fighting against. The debate is focused around how we can prevent it and how we can punish those who commit terrorist acts.)

Abrogation: To abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority. (Referred to in the article by ‘abrogation of law’ meaning a defiance of a law, in this case, a terrorist attack would be a violation of international law. Kant argues that such an event has effects on all countries)

Enmeshed: To entangle, involve, or catch in or as if in a mesh (Immanuel Kant said that the trajectories and futures of nations are enmeshed with each other. The decisions and actions of one state have a severe impact on other states because we have become so much more connected as a global community)

Justice: The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. (One of the principles of several nations, along with democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, under attack on 9/11)

Vengeance: Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution. (The desire for vengeance after September 11th was a popular feeling but Held cautions we must think any response through before acting or we will be taking a step back from our fight towards a secure world order)

War Tribunals: A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter. (Having a Committee in charge of investigating and punishing terrorists is one proposed solution. They would be modeled after the Nuremberg and Tokyo war tribunals)

Nuremberg War Trials: At the end of World War 2 in 1945, the US, Great Britain, the Soviets and France assembled to prosecute Nazi German officials for crimes committed while they were in power. The charges included conspiring and launching an aggressive war, committing war crimes and committing crimes against humanity. Collective guilt to all Nazi officials was emphasized.

Tokyo War Trials: followed the Nuremberg trials with the same goal in mind: the punish those who committed crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These trials took place between 1946 and 1948 and Japanese war criminals were tried in front of a panel of judges from 11 allied nations.

Sanctions: A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law. (One of the powers that would be given to the International Commission on Global Terrorism if it were formed. The sanctions could be economic, political, or military)

World Order: A condition in which freedom from disorder or disruption is maintained through respect for established authority. (By fighting terrorism, we will restore order to the international community. This can only happen if we look at the big picture and solve that problem instead of focusing on smaller, less significant issues)

International Criminal Court: originally established by the United Nations in December of 1948 to prosecute crimes such as genocide and other acts prohibited by international law. (One way we could possibly prosecute terrorists would be operating through this court)

 

Questions

 

1.      What did Immanuel Kant mean when he said, “We are all unavoidably side by side”? Do you agree with this idea?

2.      Which is the more effective response to terrorism: military force or prosecution by international court? Why?

3.      Is a balance between the two solutions possible?

4.      Does military action against terrorists legitimize and endorse the reasons for the attacks or is it an effective method of prevention and a good way to respond to attacks? (Ex. US attacking Afghanistan-a worthwhile intervention or a useless act that only increased hostilities towards Americans?)

5.      Would an International Commission on Global Terrorism be effective? Would holding war tribunals like at Nuremberg and Tokyo be a good solution?

6.      Can the United Nations be revitalized and re-energized and preside over an international commission against terrorism or is it too late for them? (Have they already lost their authority?)

7.      Would imposing economic, political and military sanctions against terrorist groups or states be effective or do we need to take a more hard-line approach?

8.      Would it take another large scale terrorist attack like 9/11 to make the global community re-evaluate how we deal with terrorism or are we taking the threat seriously enough already?