MILITARY FORCE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: THE US RESPONSE

ICHRP has not edited it and is not responsible for its accuracy or for the views and opinions expressed. ICHRP welcomes the re-use, re-publication and re-distribution of this paper, appropriately cited. 1. There is vigorous public debate about whether the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan is respecting the laws that regulate conduct in an armed conflict (jus in bello). But discussion of whether it was lawful for the U.S. to go to war in the first place (jus ad bellum) has been muted. This paper asks whether international law permits the U.S. and its allies to use military force to destroy the Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan, capture or kill its leaders, overthrow the Taliban regime and use force in the future against other states? If not, should international law change? At a deeper level, the debate is about the best way of dealing with terrorist acts, the relative role to be given to law enforcement approaches, military action and longer-term political and economic strategies. Does international law help in deciding which approaches can be justified and which have priority? Can Afghanistan and other states be held responsible for the 11 September attacks? Can individuals be held responsible and prosecuted? What does a human rights approach to these questions mean and is it helpful