Terrorism & Rule of Law / Comment
Legality and legitimacy in the use of force
07/07/2008 By Natalia Alvarez Molinero
In the context of International Law, the use of force must be the last resort applicable only when conflict threatens peace and international security. However, since the United States and the United Kingdom embarked on the “war against terror”, the balance between what is legal and what is legitimate has been changed.
Jayel Aheram, Flickr
On the other hand, globalisation blurs the traditional constitutive elements of the state. Meanwhile, the international community seems to aspire to become a global forum made up of respectful democracies, tolerant of the various non-state actors from which they are composed, while these adjust to their rules.
In the opinion of Natalia Alvarez, all of this means that the use of force will not only be something prohibited for states that infringe on the international order, but also something that contributes, paradoxically, to highlighting the pre-eminent figure of the state, meaning that International Law will be something confined to those arguments that (certain) states produce.
This article analyses the juridical arguments and the international trends which have brought on the current reformulation of International Law since the terrorist attacks of the 11th of September 2001.
Download the full version of this publication, available in English (81 kB)
Spanish (195 kB)
Keywords
Peace Rule of Law Terrorism United Kingdom United States War on terrorRelated publications
- Defining "Terrorism" to Protect Human Rights
- Facing the Victims in the Global Fight against Terrorism
- Which Justice for Perpetrators of Acts of Terrorism? the need for guidelines
Bio author: Natalia Alvarez Molinero
Lecturer in Law at the University of Aberdeen. Dr. Alvarez has a degree in law from University of Deusto, a degree in International Humanitarian Assistance from University of Deusto and University of Oxford, and a Ph.D in law from University of Deusto.
