Content area
Full Text
The U.S. military response to the events of September 11, 2001, represents the largest scale use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf war over a decade ago. In the course of one year, the United States has conducted major air and ground operations against a foreign state, toppled its government, pursued suspected terrorists across at least one international border, detained thousands of Afghan and other nationals, and initiated plans for possible military tribunals for some of those captured. The U.S. government has promised to continue this operation for an indefinite period. International responses have varied from commitments of troops, to expressions of political support, to strongly worded attacks on the operation. These responses have themselves elicited a variety of counterresponses from the United States.
Although most of these reactions address the effectiveness, political wisdom, or morality of U.S. measures, a significant number of global elites have offered positions on the legality of the American policy or otherwise spoken in normative terms. The claims of the United States about the lawfulness of its actions and the responses to them have addressed both branches of the international law concerning force-the law on the recourse to force, or jus ad bellum, and the law on the conduct of hostilities, or jus in bello (international humanitarian law). Although these branches are not wholly distinct, they have different historical pedigrees and contemporary contours. For example, certain basic norms of jus in bello, such as those protecting civilians and prisoners of war, long predate the core of jus ad bellum-that states' initiation of coercion against other states is generally limited to self-defense or cases of United Nations authorization.1
An examination of this process of claim and response-and in some cases counterclaim-- begins to paint a picture of current global expectations regarding the lawfulness of force in a new and highly controversial locus of circumstances for the employment of the coercive power of the state. An appraisal of these expectations invites a more important inquiry, namely, into the reasons international elites are reacting as they have been regarding the legality of the operation. And this inquiry helps answer yet another important question-whether international law on the use of force actually matters to those contemplating, employing, or reacting to military...