Abstract
Going forward after the reforms and adjustments of the 1990s, it was a reasonable expectation that humanitarian concerns would feature prominently across all UN sanctions regimes. Yet again, superpower prerogatives asserted themselves over UN sanctions when the attacks of 11 September 2001 threatened hard US national security interests. The attacks served as the impetus for a multi-pronged counter offensive with full-spectrum militarization as the centerpiece of national and international counterterrorism responses. UN counterterrorism sanctions were used to delegitimize radicalized Islam and its adherents, and to establish target lists of hard security threat actors to be disposed of with military force, or soft security targets for legal prosecution. With the wholesale abandonment of minimal standards of fair and clear procedures, the backlash against UN counterterrorism sanctions was inevitable. The new round of reforms exposed European P5 member states to the quandary of how to promote counterterrorism measures while at the same time championing due process standards vigorously defended by the EU High Courts. Effectively, the fight for due process against unlawful counterterrorism sanctions practices spearheaded by the P5 was the first time elected member states of the Security Council and their allies in the General Assembly issued a resounding rebuke of big power overreach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to the Washington Post the Obama administration directed US Defense Department personnel to refrain from use of the term “War on Terrorism” and use instead the term “Overseas Contingency Operation”; see “Global War On Terror” Is Given New Name; Washington Post by Scott Wilson and Al Kamen; March 25, 2009.
- 2.
Two and a half months later, the alliance obtained a Security Council resolution authorizing an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to provide security support to the newly installed Afghan Interim Authority.
- 3.
David Frum continued years later to defend his analogy, see, for example, his article Why “Axis of Evil” is still right, in the Daily Beast online issue of 29 January 2012; see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/29/axis-of-evil-ten-years-later.html. But neither he nor President Bush has ever explained how the comparatively weak military powers Iraq , Iran , and the DPRK could stand in realistic comparison to the military alliance of the historic Axis—arguably the most powerful military alliance of that period, that triggered WW2.
- 4.
The US government maintained, however, that military action was authorized based on previous resolutions.
- 5.
Enrico Carisch’s interview with a senior official of a regulatory agency of a European country in charge of implementing targeted financial sanctions, conducted on 22 May 2002 under a confidentiality agreement.
- 6.
See also Rico Carisch ; Institutional Responses to 9/11 , Chapter 10 of Terrornomics, edited by Sean S. Costigan and David Gould; Ashgate Publishing, 2007; pp. 173.
- 7.
See also the CTC ’s implementation manual for Resolution 1373 at: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/technical_guide_2009.pdf.
- 8.
For a particularly insightful critic of the financial war on terrorism, see Ibrahim Warde ; The price of fear—the truth behind the financial war on terror; University of California Press; 2007.
- 9.
See, for example, the 23 March 2013 announcement of a hunger strike of Guantanamo detainees at: http://shahamat-english.com/index.php/paighamoona/29832-strike-of-destitute-inmates-in-guantanamo-prison-reaches-forty-days(accessed 2 February 2015); or War Crimes of Foreign and Internal forces (December 2014) at http://shahamat-english.com/index.php/interviwe/51925-war-crimes-of-foreign-and-internal-forces-december-2014.
- 10.
The Washington Post reported on 6 June 2005: “This has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world. And it is unnecessary to be in that position,” Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said on ABC’s “This Week.”
- 11.
NBC News; Meet the Press of 21 February 2010; for a transcript, see http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35493976/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-february/.
References
Annan, K. A. (2004). High-level panel on threats, challenges and change; A more secure world: Our shared responsibility - Report of the Secretary-General’s high-level panel on threats, challenges and change. New York, NY: United Nations.
Bush, G. W. (2002, January 29). The President’s State of the Union Address. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html. Accessed 2 February 2017.
Carisch, R. (2007). Institutional responses to 9/11. In S. S. Costigan, & D. Gould. Farnham Terrornomics (Eds.), Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.
EU High Court. (2010, September 30). Judgment of the general court (Seventh Chamber)
Fassbender, B. (2006). Targeted sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and due process rights. New York: International Organizations Law Review, 3, 437–485.
General Assembly. (2005, October 24). 2005 World Summit Outcome A/RES/60/1. New York: United Nations.
Golden, T., Berkley B., McNeil D. (2002, April 13). 5 months after sanctions against Somali Company, scant proof of Qaeda Tie. New York Times.
Monitoring Group established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1363/2001. (2002). Report S/2002/541. New York: United Nations.
Monitoring Group established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1526. (2004, March 10). Fourth report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team established pursuant to Resolution 1526/2004, Report S/2006/154. New York: United Nations. Paragraph 40–41.
Security Council. (2001a, September 12). Resolution 1368/2001. New York: United Nations.
Security Council. (2001b, September 28). Resolution 1373/2001. New York: United Nations.
Security Council. (2002, December 20). Resolution 1452/2002. New York: United Nations.
Security Council. (2003, May 22). Resolution 1483/2003. New York: United Nations.
US Congress. (2001, October 26). Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism (USA Patriot Act) - Public Law 107/56/ 107th Congress. Washington, DC.
Washington Post. (2005, June 6). Biden says prison at Guantanamo Bay should be closed. Washington DC: Washington Post.
White House. (2001, September 23). Executive Order 13224 - Blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism. Washington: White House.
Zarate, J. (2013, September 10). Treasury’s War: The unleashing of a new era of financial warfare (p. 8). New York: Public Affairs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carisch, E., Rickard-Martin, L., Meister, S.R. (2017). Backlash Against the Backlash. In: The Evolution of UN Sanctions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60005-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60005-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60004-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60005-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)