Terrorism and the international law on the use of force
Michael Wood
Abstract
Michael Wood
Abstract
The chapter addresses the use of force against terrorists abroad. The use of force against non-state actors may be authorized by the UN Security Council. More controversial is the use of force against terrorists in self-defence. Reliance is sometimes placed on the ‘unable and unwilling test’ and on ‘anticipatory self-defence’; neither is (yet) accepted by states generally. It is submitted that the existing rules of international law on the use of force are adequate (and anyway are not going to change anytime soon). What is needed is a greater degree of common understanding among states as to the application of the jus ad bellum in the face of modern terrorist threats.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The chapter addresses the use of force against terrorists abroad. The use of force against non-state actors may be authorized by the UN Security Council. More controversial is the use of force against terrorists in self-defence. Reliance is sometimes placed on the ‘unable and unwilling test’ and on ‘anticipatory self-defence’; neither is (yet) accepted by states generally. It is submitted that the existing rules of international law on the use of force are adequate (and anyway are not going to change anytime soon). What is needed is a greater degree of common understanding among states as to the application of the jus ad bellum in the face of modern terrorist threats.
Key concepts: Use of force, Jus ad bellum, Terrorism, Political science, Law, International law, State (computer science), Self defense