Law vs. War: Competing Approaches to Fighting Terrorism
Authored by Ms. Shawn Boyne, Mr. Michael German, Dr. Paul R Pillar, Dr. Dallas D. Owens.
July 2005
29 Pages
Brief Synopsis
The authors address one of the fundamental assumptions underlying the conduct of the War on Terrorism - the nature of our enemy, whether perpetrators of terrorist activities are criminals or soldiers (combatants). Although the United States recognizes that terrorist acts are certainly illegal, it has chosen to treat perpetrators as combatants; but much of the world, including many of our traditional allies, have opted for a purely legalistic approach. Disagreement about assumptions is not the only basis for divergent policies for confronting terrorism, but certainly explains much of our inability to agree on strategies to overcome what we recognize as a serious common and persistent international problem. Their insights into how our respective cultures and histories influence our definitions, assumptions, and subsequent policy decisions can assist us to respect and learn from competing strategies. They correctly surmise that our current international struggle is too important for us to ignore assumptions underlying our own and competing ideas.
Contents
Foreword
Introduction
Dallas D. Owens
I. Perceptions of Terrorism: Continuity and Change
Paul R. Pillar
II. Squaring the Error
Michael German
III. Preserving the Rule of Law in a Time of Terror: Germany’s Response to Terrorism
Shawn Boyne
About the Contributors
Access Full Report [PDF]: Law vs. War: Competing Approaches to Fighting Terrorism
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
