A Critique On The Use Of Force As A Legal Response To Terrorism

Abstract

The pertinent question in this study is to what responses to terrorism taken by different states are in conformity with international law? It outlines these responses and the effectiveness of each but pays special attention to the use of force as an effective counterterrorism measure by offering a critique to the over-use, abuse and unilateral execution of armed attack in retaliation to terrorist attacks Specifically this study investigates and addresses to discuss the genesis of the doctrine ofwar, use of force, difficulties associated with the definition of terrorism,causes of terrorism,the United Nations efforts in dealing with the definition of terrorism; thelegal responsibility for acts of terrorism; and attempt to outline how bestto cure the underlying problem and not just the symptoms by applying a preventive approach rather than a reactive approach. Hopefullythese efforts will help in identifying the best ways through which thefight against terrorism may be won. This study thus examines the existing international law regarding terrorism, focusing on its perceived shortcomings and problems with regard to its inability to effectively resolve uncertainties that arise from what the legal responses to fighting terrorism would be. This study will offer constructive suggestions on how to confront this problem. This study will offer firstly illustrations where states employed unilateral use of force under the pretext of self-defence and the consequences that followed. The study will specifically analyse the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US to retaliate to terrorist attacks against it by Al Qaeda and the Kenya incursion into Somalia to counter the threat posed by Al-shabaab.