A New Type of War 
Michael Byers on Blair and Bush’s attempt to change international law
‘I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.’ According to Richard Clarke, that was George W. Bush’s response when he was told that international law did not permit the retributive use of military force after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.[*] In fact, there was no legal impediment to the intervention in Afghanistan. A sympathetic Security Council would have authorised the action, had it been asked. Even in the absence of a UN resolution, the right of self-defence allows a country to make a necessary and proportionate response. The US suffered a devastating attack, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility, the Taliban endorsed his acts and refused to surrender him. Only two countries opposed the self-defence claim: Cuba and Iraq. The intervention itself was hardly challenging: American casualties were minimal, foreign assistance readily forthcoming, and the transition to a new government greatly facilitated by the UN. Within a year, fewer than 10,000 US troops remained in the country. Although bin Laden and Mullah Omar were still at large, the Afghan campaign had become little more than a distraction.
Subscribers to the print edition can log in to view the entire article. For information about subscribing to the London Review of Books click here. This article is available for purchase online. Buy this article.
Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
Other articles by this contributor:
Woken up in Seattle · WTO woes
The Laws of War, US-Style · No Way to Fight a War
On Thinning Ice · When the Ice Melts
Jumping the Gun · Against Pre-Emption
Back to the Cold War? · Missile Treaties
In Pursuit of Pinochet · Michael Byers discusses the legal implications of the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in London in October 1998
print layout
tell a friend