My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Overpeople have been killed.
Introduction The events of 11 September and the subsequent military response by the United States and its allies raise some difficult issues in international law. Does an attack by a non-state terrorist group give rise to the right of self-defence as understood under international law?
Under what circumstances was the Taliban regime as the Afghani government itself a legitimate target for military action under the self-defence doctrine?
To what extent was the United States entitled to dictate the terms by which the Taliban regime should act before the military action would cease against it and Al Qaeda bases on Afghani soil?
Only the first issue can be answered-yes-with any degree of confidence. The others are clouded with uncertainty. To some extent this uncertainty reflects the shift of international law away from an emphasis on regulating relations between sovereign states countries towards having to incorporate the actions of non-state groups within the legal framework.
As part of this shift, the responsibility of governments for the actions of non-state groups such as the international terrorist network Al Qaeda is receiving increasing attention. The periodic use of military force by the United States against such organizations and so-called 'state sponsors of terrorism' during the s appears to be forcing a change in accepted state practice and hence arguably influencing the boundaries of international customary law.
This is followed by a review of the status of terrorism under international law. It then looks at the question of legal responsibility for the 11 September attacks, including under what circumstances the Taliban might be deemed to share some form of responsibility.
The paper goes on to examine the legal use of force, and whether the events of 11 September give rise to the right of self-defence. Finally it considers what the practical limits of self-defence are in the present case, including role of the United Nations Security Council.
The hijackers issue no demands to authorities. No organisation claims responsibility for the hijackings. Representatives of the Taliban government of Afghanistan immediately condemn the attacks.
Osama bin Laden is named as the leader of Al Qaeda. President Bush demands that the Taliban must 'deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land Failure to immediately hand over the 'terrorists' would result in the Taliban 'sharing their fate'.
According to President Bush, the 'war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
This proposal is rejected by the United States who insist on the fulfilment of their 20 September demands. According to President Bush, 'these carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime'.
It also states that 'we may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other States'. The demand is refused. By the end of December, anti-Taliban forces effectively control Afghanistan. Neither the Taliban leader, Mohammed Omar, nor bin Laden are captured or confirmed as killed and their whereabouts are unknown.
International Terrorism and International Law The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism.
During the s and s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination. Terrorism is defined by the Australian Defence Force as: The use or threatened use of violence for political ends, or any use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
International law has traditionally dealt with the duties and rights of states in their relations with each other. This is reflected in the fact that most international law dealing with international terrorism 15 concentrates on the duties of states to prevent and punish terrorism.
Certainly terrorism in all its forms is considered a criminal act under international law, but historically terrorists have generally been punished under the domestic law of the country harmed by the specific act in question.The related proclamations of September 11 and September 14 honoring the victims of the incidents on Tuesday, September 11, , are listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.
Citation: George W. Bush: "Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks," September 11, · When the President of the United States says, ‘I just got a report—the United States military forces are under attack,’ it is very hard for anybody to stand in the way of that.”ashio-midori.com Aug 22, · George W.
Bush: 9/11 Address to the Nation () George Walker Bush (born July 6, ) is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States from to He is a member of the Republican party/5(3).
S IS To authorize the President to establish military tribunals to try the terrorists responsible for the September 11, attacks against the United States; February 13, February 14, ashio-midori.com · Transcript of President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night, September 20, Mr.
Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of ashio-midori.com Sep 11, · By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States ” was planning a terrorist operation.