Comment by Leah M. Campbell
In the face of the ever-increasing threat of terrorism and the inability to root out terrorist groups, states such as the United States and Israel have resorted to retaliatory strikes against terrorist cells located in sovereign states. These states contend that terrorist threats represent a legitimate justification for the use of force abroad. Others argue that the use of such force presents an even greater threat to community order and well being. Recognizing this debate, this Comment analyzes the United States' missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan on August 7, 1998, under contemporary international law doctrines, as embodied in the United Nations Charter and customary international law. The Charter and customary international law authorize the use of force only for self-defense and establish limits based on necessity and proportionality. This Comment concludes that the United States' attacks may not have satisfied these standards because they were neither necessary nor proportionate. Furthermore, retaliatory strikes against terrorist groups located in sovereign states do not fall within the permissible bounds of self-defense as understood in contemporary international law and ultimately undermine community order.
About the Author
Leah M. Campbell. J.D. candidate 2000, Tulane University School of Law.
Citation
74 Tul. L. Rev. 1067 (2000)