The Apprenticeship of Ariel Sharon

The following essay was written prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, in an effort to reflect on an aspect of international law\'s confrontation with violence, national identity, and adjudicated forms of justice. Since the attacks in the United States, numerous commentators have expressed the need to act within the rule of international law. This essay speculates on the meaning of that notion. It is neither prescriptive in terms of policy nor reformist in terms of doctrine. Rather, it is part of an ongoing effort to discern the aesthetic significance, if not the rationality, of international law.

Download Full-text

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

African Journal of International and Comparative Law ◽

10.3366/ajicl.2017.0200 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 25 (3) ◽

pp. 371-392 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

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

German Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s2071832200004090 ◽

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?

Download Full-text

Letting the Exception Prove the Rule

Ethics & International Affairs ◽

10.1111/j.1747-7093.2003.tb00413.x ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 9-16 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Michael Byers

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

International Law ◽

The United States ◽

September 11 ◽

Terrorist Attacks ◽

Military Force ◽

Department Of State ◽

Military Campaigns ◽

The Military ◽

The U.S

It is unlikely that George W. Bush feels constrained by international law when deciding whether to use military force abroad. Nevertheless, many of the United States' allies are reluctant to cooperate with and participate in military actions that cannot reasonably be justified under international law. And supportive allies, while perhaps not strictly necessary to the United States in its recent and foreseeable military campaigns, do make the military option easier to pursue. A war against Iraq would be difficult without access to bases and airspace in countries as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and Canada. For this reason, at least, it would seem to be worth the president's while to adhere to international law where possible and, where this is not possible, to seek to change the rules.International lawyers in the Department of State, together with lawyers in other parts of the U.S. government, have excelled in shaping the law to accommodate the interests of the United States. One example, though by no means the only one, concerns the response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Download Full-text