scholarly journals The New Dilemmas of Rule of Law Assistance

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 259-263
Author(s):  
Veronica L. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of

As we meet in 2018, it is nearly thirty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; seventeen years have passed since the terrorist attacks in the United States of September 11, 2001; and it is nearly fifteen years since the United Nations promulgated its definition of rule of law in 2004.

scholarly journals 9/11 as False Flag: Why International Law Must Dare to Care

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Baker Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
African History ◽  
The Us ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International War

At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified 16 years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinise the US government's account of those attacks. Despite the emergence of an impressive and serious body of literature that impugns the official account and even suggests that 9/11 may have been a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have been reluctant to wade into what appears to be a very real controversy. African nations are no strangers to the concept of the false flag tactic, and to its use historically in the pursuit of illegitimate geopolitical aims and interests. This article draws on recent African history in this regard, as well as on deeper twentieth-century European and American history, to lay a foundation for entertaining the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag. This article then argues that the United Nations should seek to fulfil its core and incontrovertible ‘jury’ function of determining the existence of inter-state aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.

A Lack of Language – Waging War or Combatting Crime? The Blurred Rule of International Law in the Face of the Attacks of September 11, 2001

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?

Defining Terrorism

2019 ◽  
pp. 33-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Saul
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
International Level ◽  
Criminal Violence

Calls to legally define “terrorism” arose in the context of the extradition of political offenders from the 1930s onwards, with many unsuccessful efforts since then to define, criminalize, and depoliticize a common global concept of “terrorism.” It was only after the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 that many states began enacting national “terrorism” offences, spurred on by new obligations imposed by the United Nations Security Council. National laws remain nonetheless very diverse. At the international level, an elementary legal consensus has emerged that terrorism is criminal violence intended to intimidate a population or coerce a government or an international organization; some national laws add an ulterior intention to pursue a political, religious, or ideological cause. There remain intense disagreements amongst states, however, on whether there should be exceptions for certain “just” causes and, as a result, the conceptual impasse continues, even if it has narrowed.

scholarly journals The personal is global political: The antifeminist backlash in the United Nations

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Cupać ◽  
Irem Ebetürk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Gender Ideology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural Family ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Arab States ◽  
League Of Arab States ◽  
Definition Of

Antifeminist mobilisation is growing in the United Nations. It is led by a coalition of certain post-Soviet, Catholic, and Islamic states; the United States; the Vatican; conservative nongovernmental organisations, occasionally joined by the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, the League of Arab States, the UN Africa Group, and the G77. Uniting them is the aim of restoring the ‘natural family’ and opposing ‘gender ideology’. The group has become increasingly strategic, and its impact can already be seen in a number of UN fora, including the Security Council. By surveying feminist notions of backlash and comparing them to Alter and Zürn’s definition of ‘backlash politics’, the article gauges whether the group’s activities can be characterised as such politics. The conclusion is that they can, suggesting that we are looking at a group with the potential to alter not only the global course of women’s rights but also how politics is done within the UN.

The Use of Military Commissions to Prosecute Individuals Accused of Terrorist Acts

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Terrorist Acts ◽  
The Military

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, a variety of proposals emerged for bringing the perpetrators tojustice. These proposals included the use of courts-martial, the creation of a special tribunal (whether under the auspices of the United Nations or otherwise), and prosecution in U.S. federal courts.1 On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order entitled "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" (Military Order).2 Pursuant to the Military Order, the United States may establish military commissions to prosecute terrorists for violations of the laws of war and "other applicable laws."

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document