humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On 17 Mar, 22:56, Charles Bell wrote:
> Michael J. Glennon  Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Date: March
> 22, 2002
>
> Following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United State, the
> U.N. General Assembly "strongly condemn[ed] the heinous acts of
> terrorism" but declined to characterize the acts as an "armed attack"
> under Article 51. (13) The Security Council also condemned the attacks
> in two resolutions that contained preambular language recognizing the
> inherent right of self-defense. (14) But the Council stopped short of
> authorizing the use of force, which the United States did not seek and
> probably did not want. (15)
>
> The implications for the war against terrorism are clear. Use of force
> against the Taliban government of Afghanistan was, under the Court's
> construction of Article 51 in its Nicaragua opinion, unlawful.

But Nicaragua was not the last word on the matter. (In fact, Nicaragua
can
technically be distinguished on the ground that it was about rebels
and not
terrorists; note also the dissenting judgments of Jennings and
Schwebel).
Since Nicaragua, we have had SC resolution 748 (1992), adopted
in the wake of the Lockerbie bombings, which stated in the preamble
that:
"in accordance with the principle in A2(4) of the Charter of the UN,
every
State has the duty to refrain from organising, instigating, assisting
or
participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in
organised
activities within its territory directed towards the commission of
such acts,
when such acts involve a threat or use of force". The implication is
clear --
State assistance to/acquiescence in terrorist acts is a breach of
A2(4),
therefore, if the breach is sufficiently grave, the injured State may
legitimately
invoke self-defence.