Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The “War on Terror”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Conflict and Security Law

  • 1542 Accesses

Abstract

Following the events of 11 September 2001 (9/11), the prevention and pre-emption of acts of terrorism has become a priority. At international level, through a series of Resolutions and the establishment of a new Committee, the UN Security Council contributed to the development of a transnational environment accommodative of wide-ranging and collaborative counter-terrorism measures. Domestically, states such the United States and United Kingdom, engaged in immediate and determined legislating. Existing criminal and counter-terrorism legislation was updated and expanded while at the same time new Acts and measures were being introduced in an equally swift manner. Despite these substantial legislative changes however considerable legal and political effort was devoted by the US in particular to construct a transnational counter-terrorism campaign known as the ‘War on Terror’. As a political paradigm, this ‘war’ was used to justify the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a legal paradigm, the ‘War on Terror’ was designed to construct an environment within which the applicability of the relevant international norms was either severely restricted or uncertain. In the years following the events of 9/11, the US ‘War on Terror’ gradually came to define the first decade of the 21st century. Almost 20 years on since its start, its legacy continues to be felt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Despite the number of signed Conventions prohibiting certain acts of terrorism in discrete circumstances, there is, however, no single codified definition of terrorism in international law.

  2. 2.

    This Resolution was adopted on 12 September 2001 in the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11. UN Doc. S/RES/1368 (2001).

  3. 3.

    Adopted on 28 September 2001, this Resolution expressly reaffirmed Resolutions 1269 (1999) and 1368 (2001). UN Doc. S/RES/1373 (2001).

  4. 4.

    Adopted on 14 September 2005 two months after the events on 7 July 2005 in the United Kingdom. UN Doc. S/RES/1624 (2005).

  5. 5.

    Adopted on 20 November 2015 following the attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015. UN Doc. S/RES/2249 (2015).

  6. 6.

    UN Doc. S/RES/1373 (2001).

  7. 7.

    See further the text of Resolutions such as 1373 and 1624. In addition, in accordance with state obligations under Resolution 1373, the global initiative of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CETD), launched in 2012, has been aimed at assisting UN Member States to set up effective asset freezing mechanisms. Further details of the initiative are available at https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/focus-areas/financing-of-terrorism/. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  8. 8.

    Please refer to the Counter Terrorism Committee’s outline of their mandate available at https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/about-us/. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  9. 9.

    For similar arguments see for example Talmon 2005 and Powell 2007.

  10. 10.

    Roach 2011 and Jenkins et al. 2014.

  11. 11.

    George W. Bush ‘State of the Union Address’ The Guardian 21 September 2001. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  12. 12.

    See for example the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America, full text available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  13. 13.

    For a short selection, see Bellamy 2008; Poynting and Whyte 2012; Ni Aolain and Gross 2013; Davis and De Londras 2014 and Roach 2015.

  14. 14.

    See for example Dickson 2010 and Blackbourn 2014.

  15. 15.

    The term ‘emergency’ here and throughout this chapter reflects the texts of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights both of which refer to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. For an academic discussion on what constitutes an emergency, see for example Gross and Ni Aolain 2001, Dyzenhaus and Thwaites 2007 and Greene 2018.

  16. 16.

    On this point, see Ramraj et al. 2014. For further discussions on liberty/security debate and previous state responses to terrorism, see Dickson 2010 and Taylor Saito 2008.

  17. 17.

    Defined as the ability of a state to protect its citizens from internal and external threats: Goold and Lazarus 2007, p. 57.

  18. 18.

    The Act was signed into law by President George W Bush on 26 October 2001 following very brief discussions in both Houses of Congress. Please refer to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/10/images/20011026-5.html. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  19. 19.

    Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf Accessed 16 September 2020. (emphasis added)

  20. 20.

    See for example Sections 202, 207, 216 and 217 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

  21. 21.

    See for example Subtitle A, Section 401.

  22. 22.

    See for example Subtitle A, Section 402 and 403.

  23. 23.

    Perry 2003.

  24. 24.

    See Subtitle B, Section 411.

  25. 25.

    On this point see further Roach 2011, p. 238.

  26. 26.

    These include ‘enhanced interrogations’, extraordinary rendition and incommunicado detentions in black sites across the world. See further the full text of John Yoo’s Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President entitled ‘The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them’ available at https://www.justice.gov/file/19151/download. Accessed 16 September 2020. See also the infamous 2003 Torture Memo by John Yoo and Jay Bybee as discussed in ‘The Torture Memos, 10 Years Later’, The Atlantic 6 February 2012 https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/the-torture-memos-10-years-later/252439/. Accessed 16 September 2020. Also Goldsmith 2009 and Goldsmith 2012.

  27. 27.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1368, UN Doc. S/RES/1368 (2001).

  28. 28.

    Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) adopted 28 September 2001.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1624, UN Doc. S/RES/1624 (2005) similarly expressly noted that the protections of the 1951 Refugee Convention including non-refoulement should not extend to an individual who is suspected of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN.

  31. 31.

    Goldstone 2005, p. 165. See also Robinson 2005, p. 308 and Luban 2005, p. 249.

  32. 32.

    Press Conference by Security Council President, 2 April 2004, full text available at https://www.un.org/press/en/2004/pleugerpc.DOC.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020. See also Talmon 2005, p. 175; Alvarez 2003a, 2003b, p. 241; Krisch 2003, p. 883 and Alvarez 2003a, p. 874.

  33. 33.

    Talmon 2005, p. 177.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., p. 176.

  35. 35.

    UN Doc. S/RES/2249 (2015).

  36. 36.

    Talmon 2005, p. 176.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 176.

  38. 38.

    Quoted in ‘U.N. Measure Requires Every Nation to Take Steps Against Terrorism’ The Los Angelis Times 28 September 2001.

  39. 39.

    Talmon 2005, p. 176.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., pp. 176–179.

  41. 41.

    North Atlantic Treaty 1949, full text available at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  42. 42.

    Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees involving Council of Europe Member States, AS/Jur (2007) 36, p. 16.

  43. 43.

    Statement by the North Atlantic Council, Press Release (2001) 124 of 12 September 2001, full text available at http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020. (emphasis added)

  44. 44.

    Statement by the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, NATO Press Release of 08 October 2001, full text available at http://www.nato.int/DOCU/pr/2001/p01-138e.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  45. 45.

    Statement to the Press by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, on the North Atlantic Council Decision On Implementation Of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty following the 11 September Attacks against the United States, 04 October 2001, full text available at http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Buckley ‘Invoking Article 5’, NATO Review full text available at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/art2.html. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  48. 48.

    Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees involving Council of Europe Member States, AS/Jur (2007) 36, p. 18.

  49. 49.

    ‘NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism: What is Article 5?’ 18 February 2005, full text available at http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  50. 50.

    Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees involving Council of Europe Member States, AS/Jur (2007) 36, p. 19.

  51. 51.

    The term ‘emergency’ here and throughout this chapter reflects the texts of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For a judicial discussion what constitutes an emergency, please refer to cases such as Lawless v Ireland (No 3) [1961] ECHR 2, Ireland v the United Kingdom [1978] ECHR 1 and more recently A. and Others v the United Kingdom, Application no. 3455/05, Judgment of 19 February 2009 as well as Landinelli Silva v Uruguay, Case No. 34/1978, Views adopted on 8 April 1981. In addition, refer to UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 29.

  52. 52.

    See also Ramraj 2014.

  53. 53.

    See further Happold 2003 and Szasz 2002 as well as Klabbers et al. 2009.

  54. 54.

    See for example Donohue 2008; Ramraj et al. 2012; and Masferrer and Walker 2013.

  55. 55.

    See for example Jenkins et al. 2014.

  56. 56.

    See further The Open Society Justice Initiative 2013 and UN General Assembly 2010.

  57. 57.

    President George W Bush in September 2001 in an address to a joint session of Congress. Please see further ‘Transcript of President Bush’s Address’, CNN News 21 September 2001.

  58. 58.

    Military Order of November 13, 2001, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 222.

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Memorandum on Humane Treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda Detainees, The White House, 7 February 2002. Full text http://www.pegc.us/archive/White_House/bush_memo_20020207_ed.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  62. 62.

    Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/7, para 70. See also Report by the Special Rapporteur, Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/7, para 50.

  63. 63.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 8 July 1996, para 25 and Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 July 2004, paras 108–111.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 8 July 1996.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., para 24.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Under Article 6.1 of the ICCPR the right to life is defined thus: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para 25.

  70. 70.

    Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 July 2004.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., para 106.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 106.

  73. 73.

    Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) v. Uganda, Judgment 19 December 2005.

  74. 74.

    Application no. 35763/97, Judgment 21 November 2001.

  75. 75.

    Applications Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, Judgment 18 September 2009.

  76. 76.

    Application no. 29750/09, Judgment 16 September 2014.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., para 102.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para 104.

  79. 79.

    Article 4, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  80. 80.

    For a detailed discussion in relation to grounds for detention, please refer to the Hassan v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 29750/09, Judgment 16 September 2014.

  81. 81.

    Legal Adviser of the US Department of State and head of the US delegation to the Committee against Torture.

  82. 82.

    US Meeting with UN Committee against Torture, Opening Remarks by John Bellinger, full text available at https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2006/66062.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    The full text of the Geneva Conventions is available at https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  86. 86.

    Military Order of Nov. 13, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 57, 833 § 1(a) (Nov. 16, 2001).

  87. 87.

    Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, Vol 25, 6 November 2001. The role of the Office of Legal Counsel is to provide legal advice to the President and Executive Branch agencies. The Office also drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General, provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Please see further http://www.justice.gov/olc. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    Ibid.

  90. 90.

    Ibid.

  91. 91.

    The full texts of Common Article 2 and 3 and the four Geneva Conventions are available at https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  92. 92.

    For a discussion on the concept of fault lines within the international legal framework and fault lines of legitimacy in particular, please refer to Charlesworth and Coicaud 2010. In this chapter, fault lines are described as simultaneously being zones of fracture within the legal framework and opportunities for adjustment of the law.

  93. 93.

    Joint Resolution To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against those Responsible for the Recent Attacks launched against the United States, Public Law 107-40, 107th Congress, Sept. 18, 2001 [S.J. Res.23].

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Please refer to the Address to Congress and the American People by George W. Bush on 20 September 2001, full text available at http://www.history2u.com/bush_war_on_terror.htm. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  97. 97.

    Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, Vol 25, 6 November 2001, pp. 1–23.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., p. 24.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., pp. 6, 7, 29, 33.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    The events referred to were the bombings of the World Trade Centre in 1993, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

  102. 102.

    Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, Vol 25, 6 November 2001.

  103. 103.

    Ibid.

  104. 104.

    Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, Vol 25, 6 November 2001, p. 29.

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

  107. 107.

    Pictet 1960, pp. 35–37.

  108. 108.

    Ibid.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., p. 23.

  110. 110.

    Ibid.

  111. 111.

    Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2 October 1995, para 70.

  112. 112.

    Pictet 1960, pp. 35–37.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., p. 37. (emphasis added)

  114. 114.

    Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2 October 1995, para 70.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., p. 35.

  116. 116.

    Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, ICTY, 3 April 2008.

  117. 117.

    Ibid., paras 55–57.

  118. 118.

    Ibid.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., para 60.

  120. 120.

    This is expressly stated in UK Ministry of Defence Law of Armed Conflict Manual—UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004, Oxford; Oxford University Press), p. 31. The manual also refers to the French government’s approach in 1954–1956 during the Algerian uprising. Domestic law was exclusively relied on to address the uprising until June 1956 when only Common Article 3 was formally accepted as applicable.

  121. 121.

    Venice Commission, Opinion on the International Legal Obligations of Council Member States in Respect of Secret Detention Facilities and Inter-State Transport of Prisoners, Opinion no. 363/2005, CDL–AD (2006), para 78.

  122. 122.

    International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609.

  123. 123.

    Pictet 1960.

  124. 124.

    See above n. 109.

  125. 125.

    Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, Vol 25, 6 November 2001, p. 28.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., pp. 1, 31.

  127. 127.

    Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2 October 1995, para 70.

  128. 128.

    Habermas 2006, pp. 14–15.

  129. 129.

    Lehto 2010, p. 508.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., p. 508.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., p. 509.

  132. 132.

    Ibid.

  133. 133.

    Section 52 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) outlines what military objectives are. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3. For some commentary of the Additional Protocol with reference to the ‘War on Terror’, see Luban 2002, p. 9.

  134. 134.

    Section 51 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

  135. 135.

    Luban 2002, p. 9.

  136. 136.

    Ibid.

  137. 137.

    Military Order of Nov. 13, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 57, 833 § 1(a) (Nov. 16, 2001).

  138. 138.

    Ibid., Section 2 (a)(1).

  139. 139.

    Ibid., Section 2 (a)(2).

  140. 140.

    International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

  141. 141.

    Pictet 1960, p. 33.

  142. 142.

    Ibid. See also published text on ICRC official website here https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=230CD134A931BD55C12563CD00422E11#:~:text=Article%203%2C%20which%20has%20been,other%20provisions%20of%20the%20Convention. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  143. 143.

    Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2 October 1995.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., para 69.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., para 102.

  146. 146.

    Memorandum from John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel to William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defence, available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-laws-taliban-detainees.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  147. 147.

    Ibid., p. 7.

  148. 148.

    Memorandum from John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel to William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defence, available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-laws-taliban-detainees.pdf p. 10. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  149. 149.

    Ibid., p. 1.

  150. 150.

    The relevant provisions are outlined in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 U.S. Code.

  151. 151.

    §948b(2)(g) and §948c Military Commissions Act of 2006.

  152. 152.

    §948a(1)(i).

  153. 153.

    548 U.S. 557 (2006).

  154. 154.

    The decision in Hamdan followed the earlier Supreme Court rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004) and Rasul v. Bush 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2004). In both cases, the Court found that Guantánamo Bay detainees are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for their detention before a neutral decision maker and to invoke the jurisdiction of the US federal courts.

  155. 155.

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006).

  156. 156.

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006).

  157. 157.

    Ibid., p. 65.

  158. 158.

    Ibid., p. 67.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., p. 68. The US Supreme Court referred to a number of Geneva Convention III commentaries in discussing this point.

  160. 160.

    Ni Aolain 2006–2007, p. 1546.

  161. 161.

    Ibid., p. 1551.

  162. 162.

    Ibid., p. 1560.

  163. 163.

    See further Venice Commission, Opinion on the International Legal Obligations of Council of Europe Member States in Respect of Secret Detention Facilities and Inter-State Transport of Prisoners, Opinion no. 363/2005 CDL-AD (2006) 009.

  164. 164.

    On this point, see for example Cole 2009, pp. 146–148 and Roach 2011, pp. 238–308. The Open Society Justice Initiative 2013.

  165. 165.

    Dyzenhaus 2003, p. 2.

  166. 166.

    Cohen 2002, p. 1. See also Tushnet 2003 and Young 2007.

  167. 167.

    Cohen 2002, p. 1.

  168. 168.

    Ibid., p. xxxii.

  169. 169.

    Jenkins et al. 2014, p. 5.

  170. 170.

    Please see further ‘Transcript of President Bush’s Address’, CNN News 21 September 2001 available at http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  171. 171.

    The concept of ‘downward recalibration’ of rights has been discussed in detail in De Londras 2011 and Fenwick 2010.

  172. 172.

    See for example Duffy 2015; Donohue 2008; Ramraj et al. 2012; Masferrer and Walker 2013. See also UK Counter Extremism and Safeguarding Bill 2016 and the UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

  173. 173.

    Jenkins et al. 2014, p. 9.

  174. 174.

    Ibid.

  175. 175.

    Ingber 2013, p. 19.

  176. 176.

    Ibid. See also Posner 2006; Posner and Vermeule 2007; Sunstein 2004; Cole 2003; Bickel 1986 and Kavanagh 2011.

  177. 177.

    For commentary, see for example Wilson 2005, Duffy 2015 and Venice Commission, Opinion on the International Legal Obligations of Council of Europe Member States in Respect of Secret Detention Facilities and Inter-State Transport of Prisoners, Opinion no. 363/2005 CDL-AD (2006) 009 amongst many others.

  178. 178.

    Executive Order 13491 revoked all executive directives, orders, and regulations including but not limited to those issued to or by the CIA between 11 September 2001 and January 2009. Thus, in effect, secret detention facilities were no longer to be used, enhanced interrogation was prohibited, the full protections of Geneva Conventions I-IV and all other relevant international provisions were made available to remaining detainees. Extraordinary renditions—subject to improved monitoring mechanisms to prevent ill treatment—have however remained an available counter-terrorism tool for the US. Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies Issues: Its Recommendations to the President, Department of Justice (Office of the Attorney General), 24 August 2009 (updated on 15 September 2014), full text available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/special-task-force-interrogations-and-transfer-policies-issues-its-recommendations-president. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  179. 179.

    Dyzenhaus 2008; for further discussion on legalism and legality, please refer to Fuller 1949; Shklar 1964; Shapiro 2011; and Dyzenhaus 2006.

  180. 180.

    ‘US quits ‘biased’ UN Human Rights Council’ BBC News 20 June 2018, full text available here https://www.bbc.com/news/44537372 Accessed 16 September 2020 and Schwirtz, M. ‘At the United Nations, Fears of a ‘New World Disorder’ as Trump Returns’ The New York Times 24 September 2018, full text available here https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/world/united-nations-united-states-trump-isolationism.html. Accessed 16 September 2020.

  181. 181.

    See for example Gearty 2013; Wilson 2005; Brems 2011; UN General Assembly 2010 amongst many texts making this argument.

References

Books, (Online) Articles and Chapters in Books

  • Alvarez JE (2003a) Hegemonic International Law Revisited. American Journal of International Law 97:873–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez JE (2003b) The UN’s ‘War’ on Terrorism. International Journal of Legal Information 31:238–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy AJ (2008) Fighting Terror: Ethical Dilemmas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickel AM (1986) The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackbourn J (2014) Anti-terrorism Law and Normalising Northern Ireland. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems E (2011) Transitional Justice in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. The International Journal of Transitional Justice 5:282

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth H, Coicaud J M (2010) Fault Lines of International Legitimacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole D (2003) Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism. W.W. Norton & Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole D (2009) English Lessons: Analysis of UK and US Responses to Terrorism. Current Legal Problems 62:136–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees involving Council of Europe Member States, AS/Jur (2007) 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, De Londras F (2014) Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Londras F (2011) Detention in the ‘War on Terror’: Can Human Rights Fight Back? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson B (2010) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Conflict in Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue L (2008) The Cost of Counter-Terrorism: Power, Politics and Liberty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy H (2015) The ‘War on Terror’ ad the Framework of International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2003) Humpty Dumpty Rules or the Rule of Law: Legal Theory and the Adjudication of National Security. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 28:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2006) The Constitution of Law; Legality in a Time of Emergency. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2008) Introduction: Legality in a Time of Emergency. Windsor Review of Legal & Social Issues 24:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D, Thwaites R (2007) Legality and Emergency – The Judiciary in a Time of Terror. In: Lynch A, MacDonald E, Williams G (eds) Law and Liberty in the War on Terror. The Federation Press, Sydney, pp 9–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick H (2010) Recalibrating ECHR Rights and the Role of the HRA post 9/11: Reasserting International Human Rights Norms in the ‘War on Terror’? Current Legal Problems 63:153–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller L L (1949) The Case of the Speluncian Explorers. Harvard Law Review 62:616–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Gearty C (2013) Liberty and Security. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith J (2009) The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment inside the Bush Administration. W.W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith J (2012) Power and Constraint. W.W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone R (2005) The Tension between Combating Terrorism and Protecting Civil Liberties. In: Wilson R A (ed) Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 157–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Goold BJ, Lazarus L (2007) Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing, Portland OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene A (2018) Permanent States of Emergency and the Rule of Law: Constitutions in an Age of Crisis. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross O, Ni Aolain F (2001) Emergency, War and International Law—Another Perspective. Nordic Journal of International Law 70:29–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2006) The Divided West. Polity Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Happold M (2003) Security Council Resolution 1373 and the Constitution of the United Nations. Leiden Journal of International Law 16:593–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingber R (2013) Human Rights, National Security, and Executive Branch Legal Decisionmaking. Administrative and Regulatory Law News 38:19

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins D, Jacobsen A, Henriksen A (2014) The Long Decade: How 9/11 Changed the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh A (2011) Constitutionalism, Counter-Terrorism and the Courts: Changes in the British Constitutional Landscape. International Journal of Constitutional Law (ICON) 9:172–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J, Peters A, Ulfstein G (2009) The Constitutionalization of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2003) The Rise and Fall of Collective Security: Terrorism, US Hegemony, and the Plight of the Security Council. In: Walter C, Voneky S, Roeben V, Schorkopf F (2003) Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security versus Liberty. Springer, Berlin, pp 879–908

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehto M (2010) War on Terror—Armed Conflict with Al-Qaida? Nordic Journal of International Law 78:499–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Luban D (2002) The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights. Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly 22:9–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Luban D (2005) Eight Fallacies about Liberty and Security. In: Wilson R A (ed) Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 242–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch A, MacDonald E, Williams G (2007) Law and Liberty in the War on Terror. The Federation Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Masferrer A, Walker C (2013) Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law. Edward Elgar, Gloucester

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni Aolain F (2006–2007) Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get it Right? Minnesota Law Review 91:1523–1561

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni Aolain F, Gross O (2013) Guantanamo and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry N (2003) The Numerous Federal Legal Definitions of Terrorism: The Problem of Too Many Grails. Journal of Legislation 30:249–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet JS (1960) Commentary on the Geneva Conventions 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner R (2006) Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner E A, Vermeule E (2007) Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell C H (2007) The Legal Authority of the United Nations Security Council. In: Goold B J, Lazarus L (eds) Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing, Portland, pp. 157–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Poynting S, Whyte D (2012) Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The ‘War on Terror’ as Terror. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramraj V (2014) Counter-Terrorism’s Engagement with Transnational Legality. In: Jenkins D, Jacobsen A, Henriksen A (eds) The Long Decade: How 9/11 Changed the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 121–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramraj VV, Hor M, Roach K, Williams G (2012) Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach K (2011) The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach K (2015) Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson M (2005) Connecting Human Rights, Human Development and Human Security. In: Wilson R A (ed) Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 308–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S J (2011) Legality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shklar J (1964) Legalism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2004) Minimalism at War. Supreme Court Review 47–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Szasz P (2002) The Security Council starts Legislating. American Journal of International Law 96:901–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2005) The Security Council as World Legislature. American Journal of International Law 99:175–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor Saito N (2008) From Chinese Exclusion to Guantánamo Bay: Plenary Power and the Prerogative State. University Press of Colorado, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • The Open Society Justice Initiative (2013) Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition. GHP Media, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (2003) Defending Korematsu?: Reflections on Civil Liberties in Wartime. Wisconsin Law Review 23:273–307

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly (2010) Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism of the Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter C, Voneky S, Roeben V, Schorkopf F (2003) Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security versus Liberty. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RA (2005) Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Young J (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

Cases, Advisory Opinions, Judgments, Protocols and Other Documents

  • A. and Others v the United Kingdom, Application no. 3455/05, Judgment of 19 February 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 July 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 35763/97, Judgment 21 November 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) v. Uganda, Judgment 19 December 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan v. the United Kingdom Application no. 29750/09, Judgment 16 September 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland v the United Kingdom [1978] ECHR 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurisdiction), IT-94-1, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2 October 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Landinelli Silva v Uruguay, Case No. 34/1978

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless v Ireland (No 3) [1961] ECHR 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 8 July 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Military Commissions Act of 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule” (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, ICTY, 3 April 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasul v. Bush 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Report by the Special Rapporteur, Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (2005) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/7

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (2006) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/7

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 29: Article 4: Derogations during a State of Emergency, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Security Council Resolution 1368, UN Doc. S/RES/1368 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Security Council Resolution 1373, UN Doc. S/RES/1373 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Security Council Resolution 1624, UN Doc. S/RES/1624 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Security Council Resolution 2249, UN Doc. S/RES/2249 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnava v. Turkey Applications Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, Judgment 18 September 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Venice Commission (2006) Opinion on the International Legal Obligations of Council Member States in Respect of Secret Detention Facilities and Inter-State Transport of Prisoners, Opinion no. 363/2005, CDL–AD (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Rumyana van Ark

  2. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rumyana van Ark

Authors
  1. Rumyana van Ark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rumyana van Ark .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Sergey Sayapin

  2. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Rustam Atadjanov

  3. National Law School of India, Pune, India

    Umesh Kadam

  4. Law and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK

    Gerhard Kemp

  5. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar

  6. Bristol Law School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Noëlle Quénivet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Ark, R. (2022). The “War on Terror”. In: Sayapin, S., Atadjanov, R., Kadam, U., Kemp, G., Zambrana-Tévar, N., Quénivet, N. (eds) International Conflict and Security Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_60

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_60

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-514-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-515-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation