Beyond The U.S. War on Terrorism: Comparing Domestic Legal Remedies to an International Dilemma
Edited by Dr. Dallas D. Owens.
May 2005
Brief Synopsis
The John Bassett Moore Society of International Law, University of Virginia School of Law, in cooperation with the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, sponsored a conference, "Beyond the U.S. War on Terrorism: Comparing Domestic Legal Remedies to an International Dilemma," on February 25-26, 2005. Over 160 people participated in the conference conducted at The University of Virginia. Conference participants included representatives from government agencies involved in the U.S. war on terrorism, students and faculty members from other universities participating in fields related to the topic of the conference, and members of the local community and the University of Virginia.
Key Insights
• Competing definitions of terrorism and war yield different diplomatic, legal, and military consequences. The definition a policymaker chooses is a key consideration.
• The United States defined the September 11, 2001, attacks as acts of war rather than crimes outside a war context. The resulting response was due in part to a lack of legal flexibility in U.S. law, not understanding the power imbedded in criminal categorization, and reliance on structural changes for solutions.
• European countries have a long history of individually and collectively responding to terrorism through their legal systems and the United States could profit from examining those responses.
• Latin America has a long history of contending with terrorism in a context of guerrilla warfare.
• Strategists and policymakers often incorrectly view the Islamic world as homogeneous and unchanging in its relationship to the West and to terrorism.
• Policy formulation could benefit from the many historical examples, some in U.S. history, of problems associated with applying laws of war to insurgencies and other irregular warfare.
• The United States should avoid: (1) limiting itself by adopting overly simple definitions; (2) characterizing offending groups by a tactic used and forgetting they have many other dimensions; (3) one-dimensional reactions to attacks; and (4) underestimating the value of legal solutions to international problems.
Access Full Report [PDF]: Beyond The U.S. War on Terrorism: Comparing Domestic Legal Remedies to an International Dilemma
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
