A number of commentators assert that the military response to the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001 - encompassing attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and commonly referred to as the 'war on terror' - has significantly impacted upon the international law regulating resort to armed force by states (jus ad bellum), loosening the constraints on self-defence. 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. Through an examination of the lawfulness (or otherwise) of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the legal justifications advanced by those states involved and the reaction of the international community, and involving a detailed discussion of the most important developments (ie, the permissibility of self-defence against non-state, terrorist, actors and the 'Bush doctrine' of pre-emptive self-defence against terrorists as proclaimed in the 2002 US National Security Strategy) the book determines whether, and to what extent, the right to use force - or the acceptability of such military action - is currently undergoing a radical transformation. By assessing subsequent developments illustrating the impact that military action against Afghanistan and Iraq has had on the jus ad bellum, this book represents a distinctive and original contribution to the academic literature.

A number of commentators assert that the military response to the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001 - encompassing attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and commonly referred to as the 'war on terror' - has significantly impacted upon the international law regulating resort to armed force by states (jus ad bellum), loosening the constraints on self-defence. 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. Through an examination of the lawfulness (or otherwise) of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the legal justifications advanced by those states involved and the reaction of the international community, and involving a detailed discussion of the most important developments (ie, the permissibility of self-defence against non-state, terrorist, actors and the 'Bush doctrine' of pre-emptive self-defence against terrorists as proclaimed in the 2002 US National Security Strategy) the book determines whether, and to what extent, the right to use force - or the acceptability of such military action - is currently undergoing a radical transformation. By assessing subsequent developments illustrating the impact that military action against Afghanistan and Iraq has had on the jus ad bellum, this book represents a distinctive and original contribution to the academic literature.

Laws regulating armed conflict have existed for centuries, but the bulk of these provisions have been concerned with wars between states. Relatively little attention has been paid to the enormously important area of internal armed conflict. At a time when international armed conflicts are vastly outnumbered by domestic disputes, this book seeks to redress the balance through a comprehensive analysis of those rules which exist in international law to protect civilians during internal armed conflict. From regulations in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries according to the doctrine of recognition of belligerency, this book traces the subsequent development of international law by the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols, as well as through the more recent jurisprudence of the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals. The book also considers the application of human rights law during internal armed conflict, before assessing how effectively the applicable law is, and can be, enforced.

Now in paperback. In this book, the compilers have brought together more than 1,800 references to literature relating to the Blackfoot. About one third of the citations are annotated, and an author index and a general index simplify the utilization of this valuable resource tool.

There is considerable writing on the laws designed to regulate war, but most of this material is devoted to international wars between different states. Lindsay Moir examines the laws which exist to protect civilians caught up in armed conflicts within a single state. This book traces the development of international law from the nineteenth century, up to events arising from the conflicts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. It demonstrates how human rights can offer protection during armed conflict and how effectively (and by whom) the relevant rules can be enforced.