Interpreting September 11

Abstract

Whether to interpret September 11 as an act of war or a criminal act is embedded within a larger dispute about the preferred nature of global security rules in the post-cold war world. Interpreting September 11 as war is consistent with a preference for Westphalian global security rules; interpreting September 11 as a crime is consistent with a preference for global society rules. We present evidence of a dramatic interpretive gulf between US and other leaders around the world in their understanding and portrayal of September 11 and the ensuing ‘war on terrorism’. Using a rule-oriented constructivist approach, we argue that this interpretive dispute perpetuates two dominant post-cold war trends: attempts by many in the international community to construct global collective security rules, and resistance to that project from a hegemonic United States.