Terrorist Crime, Taliban Guilt, Western Victims, and International Law

Authors

Mark A. Drumbl, Washington and Lee University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Denver Journal of International Law and Policy

Publication Date

2002

Abstract

On September 11th, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the United States and killed approximately 3,000 civilians from 81 countries. Traditionally, international law treats armed attacks differently than criminal attacks. States launch armed attacks against other states; organized insurgency movements having some level of command or political structure also may launch internal armed attacks against state governments. Individuals or groups, on the other hand, initiate criminal attacks. The law responds to criminal attacks through investigation and trial. The law permits states to use force against other states in self-defense to armed attacks.The September 11th attack was a war-like attack undertaken against a state by individuals from other states operating through a non-state actor that has some command and political structure. As such, it does not cleanly fit into either the armed attack or criminal attack category. In fact, it blurs the distinction between the two.

Recommended Citation

Mark A. Drumbl, Terrorist Crime, Taliban Guilt, Western Victims, and International Law, 31 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 69 (2002).