This house believes states are justified in waging war in response to terrorist acts

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most significant threats to international security now purportedly come from non-state actors, particularly global terrorists. Counterterrorism has become one of the key objectives of Western security policies. Even before the September 11 attacks, the United States targeted Al Qaeda following the Twin Tower bombings and attacks on the US embassy in Kenya. Bombs were dropped on alleged Al Qaeda training camps and states that were believed to harbor terrorists were threatened with coercive measures. However, it was only after the September 11 attacks that a significantly more hawkish counterterrorism strategy took shape. Not only was the use of force central to this new strategy, but so was the initiation of war and even the invasion and occupation of countries that were believed to support or harbor terrorists. The Afghanistan war epitomised this shift in strategy, but the new doctrine also influenced thinking on the invasion of Iraq, with many security experts warning of a potential alliance between dictators such as Saddam Hussein and international terrorists that sought Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Those that champion war as a means to fighting international terrorism argue that allowing states to support or harbor terrorists endangers national security and makes terrorist attacks far more likely. Invasion can be effective in disrupting terrorist networks and cutting international terrorists off from the states that provide them with resources or sanctuaries. Moreover, by engaging in 'nation-building,' Western nations can combat the social roots of terrorism by promoting democracy, alleviating poverty, tackling human rights abuses, empowering women, and discrediting extremist ideologies. However, critics argue that invading other countries only increases the risk of terrorism. Occupying foreign lands, killing civilians through military action, and trying to implement Western forms of democracy only strengthens the recruitment base of terrorist organisations. Furthermore, invasions and occupations are far too costly for the public and economy to endure. International police action, and not invasion, is the only suitable method for tackling global terrorism.


[ U.N. Charter, art. 51 King, Matthew Scott, 'Legality of the United States War on Terror: is Article 51 a Legitimate Vehicle for the War in Afghanistan or Just a Blanket to Cover-up International War Crimes', ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 9 457 (2002-2003), p. 458.[Quigley, John, 'The Afghanistan War and Self-Defense', Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2003), pp. 541-562.[Robert Cooper, 'Why we still need empires', The Observer, Sunday 7 April 2002[Max Boot, 'Pirates, Terrorism and Failed States', Wall Street Journal, December 9 2008 [Sebastian Mallaby, 'The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the case for American Empire', Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002,Sean D. Murphy, Terrorism and the Concept of "Armed Attack" in Article 51 of the U.N.Charter,43HARv. INT'L L.J. 41, 50 (2002)Cordesman, Anthony H. (2002), Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Defending the U.S. Homeland, (Westport CT: Center for Strategic Studies)Christopher A. Preble, 'The Mythical Connection between Terrorism and Failed States', The National Interest June 27 2011.John Parichini, 'Putting WMD Terrorism into Perspective", Washington Quarterly Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Autumn 2003), pp. 37-50.[Francis Fukuyama, 'Nation-Building 101', The Atlantic Monthly, (January/February 2004).[Gery T. Dempsey, 'Old Folly ina New Disguise: Nation Building to Combat Terrorism', Cato Institute Policy Analysis, No. 429 (March 2002).[John Pilger, 'Breaking The Silence: Truth and Lies In The War On Terror' (2003). [The Independent, 'Women protesting at 'pro-rape' law attacked by Afghan men', Thursday 16 April 2009.[Michael Howard, 'What's In A Name?: How to Fight Terrorism', Foreign Affairs, (January-February 2002).[Seth G. Jones and Martin C. Libicki, 'How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering Al Qa'ida', RAND Corporation Monograph Report (2008).[Bruce Falconer, 'Civilian Casualties Undermining Afghanistan War Effort, Says Report', Mother Jones, February 17 2009[Carlotta Gall and David E. Sanger, 'Civilian Deaths Undermine Allies' War on Taliban', The New York Times May 13 2007[Erica Gaston, 'Karzai's civilian casualties ultimatum', Foreign Policy June 2 2011 Richard Falk, 'Appraising the War Against Afghanistan', Social Sciences Research Council [UN News Centre, 'Afghan civilian deaths rise, insurgents responsible for most casualties