The War on Terror and the Laws of War: A Military Perspective

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Pub Date : 2015-08-14 DOI:10.5334/UJIEL.DD
Ben Stanford
{"title":"The War on Terror and the Laws of War: A Military Perspective","authors":"Ben Stanford","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.DD","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this well-timed revision to the first edition published in 2009, the authors allow the reader to benefit from their unique yet balanced perspectives as they address some of the most pressing issues in the enduring campaign to defeat terrorism insofar as they concern the laws of war. The six authors, all of whom served in some capacity in the Armed Forces of the United States of America (USA), confess not to provide a critical analysis of the official characterisation of the ‘War on Terror’ as a genuine armed conflict under international humanitarian law. A reader expecting such an approach should invest their time and attention elsewhere. Whilst acknowledging that ‘it is clear that the term “war on terror” is legally and operationally overbroad and misleading’,1 the authors choose to ground their contributions on the basis that the USA has operated, and continues to operate, as if it were in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda and its associated groups. According to the authors, this stance is justified by the argument that the three branches of government of the USA have repeatedly and consistently reached decisions to this effect. As a result, many readers might be inclined to approach the book with caution at first. This fundamental stance is however well-noted, emphasised, and indeed reasonable as the authors approach the controversial subjects from a factual, and most importantly, a military perspective.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.DD","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this well-timed revision to the first edition published in 2009, the authors allow the reader to benefit from their unique yet balanced perspectives as they address some of the most pressing issues in the enduring campaign to defeat terrorism insofar as they concern the laws of war. The six authors, all of whom served in some capacity in the Armed Forces of the United States of America (USA), confess not to provide a critical analysis of the official characterisation of the ‘War on Terror’ as a genuine armed conflict under international humanitarian law. A reader expecting such an approach should invest their time and attention elsewhere. Whilst acknowledging that ‘it is clear that the term “war on terror” is legally and operationally overbroad and misleading’,1 the authors choose to ground their contributions on the basis that the USA has operated, and continues to operate, as if it were in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda and its associated groups. According to the authors, this stance is justified by the argument that the three branches of government of the USA have repeatedly and consistently reached decisions to this effect. As a result, many readers might be inclined to approach the book with caution at first. This fundamental stance is however well-noted, emphasised, and indeed reasonable as the authors approach the controversial subjects from a factual, and most importantly, a military perspective.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反恐战争与战争法:军事视角
在2009年出版的第一版的适时修订中,作者让读者受益于他们独特而平衡的视角,因为他们解决了一些在持久的打击恐怖主义的运动中最紧迫的问题,因为他们涉及战争法。这六位作者都曾在美国武装部队中担任过某种职务,他们承认没有对官方将“反恐战争”定性为国际人道主义法下的真正武装冲突进行批判性分析。期待这种方法的读者应该把时间和注意力投入到其他地方。虽然承认“很明显,‘反恐战争’一词在法律上和操作上都过于宽泛且具有误导性”,但作者选择将他们的贡献建立在这样一个基础上:美国一直在行动,并将继续行动,就好像它在与基地组织及其相关组织发生武装冲突一样。根据作者的说法,这种立场是合理的,因为美国政府的三个部门一再一致地做出了这种效果的决定。因此,许多读者一开始可能倾向于谨慎对待这本书。然而,当作者从事实,最重要的是,从军事的角度来处理有争议的主题时,这一基本立场得到了充分的注意和强调,并且确实是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Legal Nature of the Climate Change Regime: Fluctuation between Lex Lata and Lex Ferenda The Concept of a Virtual Registered Office in EU Law: Challenges and Opportunities Discharge of Debts of Insolvent Entrepreneurs Under the Restructuring and Insolvency Directive Editorial of Volume 38, Issue I of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Will Victims’ Rights Be Lost in Translation? Bridging the Information Gap in Universal Jurisdiction Cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1