Throughout human history, scholars, statesmen and military leaders have attempted to define what constitutes the legitimate use of armed force by one community against another. Moreover, if force is to be used, what normative guidelines should govern the conduct of warfare? Based upon the assumption that armed conflict is a human enterprise and therefore subject to human limitations, the Western 'just war tradition' represents an attempt to provide these guidelines. Following on from the success of Hensel's earlier publication, The Law of Armed Conflict, this volume brings together an internationally recognized team of scholars to explore the philosophical and societal foundations of just war tradition. It relates the principles of jus ad bellum to contemporary issues confronting the global community and explores the relationship between the principles of jus in bello and the various principles embodied in the customary law of armed conflict. Applying an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing and assessing the links between just war and the norms of behaviour, the book provides a valuable contribution to international law, international relations and national security studies.

Through a careful examination of religious and philosophical literature, the contributors to the volume analyze, compare and assess diverse Western, Islamic, Hindu and East Asian perspectives concerning the appropriate criteria that should govern the decision to resort to the use of armed force and, once that decision is made, what constraints should govern the actual conduct of military operations. In doing so, the volume promotes a better understanding of the various ways in which diverse peoples and societies within the global community approach the question of what constitutes the legitimate use of military force as an instrument of policy in the resolution of conflicts.

A military response has been a viable option for combating international terrorism in the past and it will continue to be an option in the future. Possible military actions range from rescuing hostages to neutralizing terrorist camps and making direct strikes against targets verified as the infrastructure for state-sponsored training and support complexes of complex groups. The military response is part of a larger strategy that seeks to maximize the risk of punishment for terrorists and their sponsors and supporters while minimizing their potential rewards. In this context military action must be consistent with international law. If states decide that all means are justified, then those acting to preserve the rule of law in the face of the terrorist threat will become indistinguishable from the evil they seek to undo. Colonel Erickson?s study presents an overview of international law directed at the issue of managing international terrorism. This study is thought provoking and provides the decision-maker with a useful tool. Of particular note is the checklist provided in appendix A that summarizes chapters 4-6. It behooves everyone dedicated to achieving a world free from terror to learn more of this phenomenon and how we can deal with it. Colonel Erickson?s study, for the first time and in one place, makes available a general survey of international law concerning this subject. I highly recommend his study. Robert W. Norris Major General, United States Air Force The Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force

From the Washington Admin. to the present, Congress and the Pres. have enacted 11 separate formal DoW against foreign nations in five different wars. This report provides historical background on the enactment of DoW and authorizations for the use of force and analyzes their legal effects under internat. and U.S. domestic law. It also sets forth their texts in two appendices. The report includes an extensive listing and summary of statutes that are triggered by a DoW, a declaration of national emergency, and/or the existence of a state of war. Also includes a summary of the congressional procedures applicable to the enactment of a DoW or authorization for the use of force and to measures under the War Powers Resolution. This is a print on demand report.

In Defending Humanity, internationally acclaimed legal scholar George P. Fletcher and Jens David Ohlin, a leading expert on international criminal law, tackle one of the most important and controversial questions of our time: When is war justified? When a nation is attacked, few would deny that it has the right to respond with force. But what about preemptive and preventive wars, or crossing another state's border to stop genocide? Was Israel justified in initiating the Six Day War, and was NATO's intervention in Kosovo legal? What about the U.S. invasion of Iraq? In their provocative book, Fletcher and Ohlin offer a groundbreaking theory on the legality of war with clear guidelines for evaluating these interventions. The authors argue that much of the confusion on the subject stems from a persistent misunderstanding of the United Nations Charter. The Charter appears to be very clear on the use of military force: it is only allowed when authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense. Unfortunately, this has led to the problem of justifying force when the Security Council refuses to act or when self-defense is thought not to apply--and to the difficult dilemma of declaring such interventions illegal or ignoring the UN Charter altogether. Fletcher and Ohlin suggest that the answer lies in going back to the domestic criminal law concepts upon which the UN Charter was originally based, in particular, the concept of "legitimate defense," which encompasses not only self-defense but defense of others. Lost in the English-language version of the Charter but a vital part of the French and other non-English versions, the concept of legitimate defense will enable political leaders, courts, and scholars to see the solid basis under international law for states to intervene with force--not just to protect themselves against an imminent attack but also to defend other national groups.