A number of commentators assert that the military response to the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 - the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the commonly referred to 'war on terror' - has significantly impacted the international law regulating resort to armed force by states (jus ad bellum), loosening the constraints on self-defense. Some even suggest that the very future of the United Nations - in particular, the Security Council and its collective security system - is at risk, at least in its current form. This book does not address the question of the future of the United Nations, an issue probably best left to scholars of international relations. Instead, it seeks to place the 'war on terror' within the context of international law, assessing how, or whether, it can be accommodated within the existing legal framework limiting the use of force. The book examines of the lawfulness of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the legal justifications advanced by the States involved and the reaction of the international community. It also looks at the permissibility of self-defense against non-State terrorist actors and the 'Bush doctrine' of preemptive self-defense against terrorists as proclaimed in the 2002 US National Security Strategy. It determines whether, and to what extent, the right to use force - or the acceptability of such military action - is currently undergoing a radical transformation. It also assesses the subsequent developments that illustrate the impact military action against Afghanistan and Iraq has had on the jus ad bellum. Reappraising the Resort to Force represents a distinctive and original contribution to academic literature.
