The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and peacetime reprisal are reviewed and analyzed relative to their applicability toward using the U.S. Armed Forces against international terrorists. The LOAC is proposed as an alternative to the currently used law enforcement approach. The LOAC provides a viable, more practical alternative to law enforcement for dealing with international terrorism. Legal objections most often posed against the use of the LOAC against international terrorists are analyzed and refuted. Peacetime reprisal and the doctrine of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter are compared with respect to their applicability as measures to be invoked against state-sponsored terrorism. This paper asserts that the LOAC, and peacetime reprisal, used selectively, offer a more suitable legal approach for dealing with state-sponsored international terrorists, and a more pragmatic international legal regime for operations by armed forces. It further recommends formal reassessment of these measures as means to confront and respond to state-sponsored terrorism.
Targeting International Terrorism with the Law of Armed Conflict: An Alternative Strategy
1991
43 pages
Report
No indication
English
Military Operations, Strategy, & Tactics , Conflict , Defense systems , Doctrine , International , Law enforcement , Peacetime , Targeting , Terrorism , Terrorists , United nations , Weapons , Counterterrorism , Military forces(United States) , LOAC(Law Of Armed Conflict) , Reprisals , Strategy , Overseas , Policies
Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response
NTIS | 2013
|Foreign Fighters in the Ukrainian Armed Conflict: An International Humanitarian Law Perspective
DOAJ | 2023
|The Status of Civil Aircraft in Armed Conflict
British Library Conference Proceedings | 1997
|