War on Terror and the New International Order: Shaping International Law Use of Force Discourse at the 21st Century (Paperback)
The book "War on Terror and the New International Order", by Tatiana
Waisberg, recently published by CreateSpace, explores legal and
geopolitical aspects related to use of force against terrorism. The
study is a product of 4 year of research at the Zvi Meitar Center for
Legal Advanced Studied, at Tel Aviv University. For those who are
interested at the subject, and more specifically at arguments advanced
by Israel since 1956, the book presents a detailed analysis of several
instances where the Jewish State defended its right of self-defense to
justify the use of force against terrorist organizations harbored by
third states, as in Egypt (1956), Tunisia (1985) and Lebanon (1982 and
2006).
By presenting legal precedents and state practice, it is demonstrated a post-9/11 paradigm shift on use of force discourse. The argument consistently advanced by Israel, and overwhelmingly rejected by the international community until 2001, became the rule since Bush Doctrine embraced exactly the same rational defended by Israel since Kadesh operation, 1956. Recent state practice related to the argument of self-defense against passive terrorism support, U.S.-Pakistan (2011), Turkey-Iraq (2011), and Ethiopia-Eritrea (2012), affirm an ongoing trend towards further legitimization of Israel's pioneer arguments related to use of force in International Law.
By presenting legal precedents and state practice, it is demonstrated a post-9/11 paradigm shift on use of force discourse. The argument consistently advanced by Israel, and overwhelmingly rejected by the international community until 2001, became the rule since Bush Doctrine embraced exactly the same rational defended by Israel since Kadesh operation, 1956. Recent state practice related to the argument of self-defense against passive terrorism support, U.S.-Pakistan (2011), Turkey-Iraq (2011), and Ethiopia-Eritrea (2012), affirm an ongoing trend towards further legitimization of Israel's pioneer arguments related to use of force in International Law.
The 21st century use of force discourse against terrorism seems to be transforming the limits to the right of self-defense whenever failed states are unable or unwilling to deny safe havens to non-state actors resposible for terrorist acts deemed as an "armed attack". The path to the legitimization of the argument of self-defense against passive terrorism support is traced from a legal perspective. Multiple examples of international jurisprudence and state practice demonstrate a clear shift in use of force discourse within the argument of self-defense against states that harbor international terrorist organizations. This shift leads to a dramatic change in the way sovereignty is appraised, no longer as an unconditional right. State practice discussion regarding the claim of self-defense against passive terrorism support includes recent cases such as U.S.-Pakistan (2011), Turkey-Iraq (2011) and Ethiopia-Eritrea (2012).
ReplyDelete