Author

Ahmed Ismail

Abstract

The U.S. and U.K. attacks on the territory of Afghanistan on 7 October 2001 were not justified as a legal application of their inherent right to self-defense under international law. The attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade Center were not armed attacks by the State of Afghanistan; neither did the U.S. letter to the Security Council nor official documents and statements prove Taliban’s responsibility and effective control over al Qaeda’s terrorist operation on the U.S. soil. Even if the U.S. and U.K. invoked Article 51, considering 9/11 as armed attacks, the 7 October 2001 attacks on the territory of Afghanistan still did not satisfy customary law requirements of self-defense; necessity, proportionality, and immediacy. In addition, the U.S. and U.K. arguments for anticipatory use of force in the face of imminent threats by Afghanistan were not supported by evidence to the Council. Moreover, both governments did not receive Security Council authorization to use force in self-defense when they attacked Afghanistan.

Department

Law Department

Degree Name

LLM in International and Comparative Law

Date of Award

2-1-2017

Online Submission Date

October 2017

First Advisor

Skouteris, Thomas

Committee Member 1

Beckett, Jason

Committee Member 2

Sayed, Hani

Document Type

Thesis

Extent

83 p.

Rights

The author retains all rights with regard to copyright. The author certifies that written permission from the owner(s) of third-party copyrighted matter included in the thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study has been obtained. The author further certifies that IRB approval has been obtained for this thesis, or that IRB approval is not necessary for this thesis. Insofar as this thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study is an educational record as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 USC 1232g), the author has granted consent to disclosure of it to anyone who requests a copy.

IRB

Not necessary for this item

Share

COinS