Abstract
In recent years the USA has conducted hundreds of targeted operations against alleged terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, and the article analyses if the operations comply with jus ad bellum. The first part of the article summarizes the status of the relevant legal principles and concludes that the right to self-defence has undergone substantial changes since the attacks on 9/11. The second part analyses if the American operations comply with the legal framework just presented and conclude that the majority of the operations appear to be based on local consent and therefore comply with the jus ad bellum. The operations may also be lawful if they comply with a right to self-defence, but it is submitted that the attacks on 11 September 2001 can no longer serve as a basis for an American right to selfdefence. To justify its operations as self-defence, the USA must therefore point to other armed attacks. It must also show that the local authorities are unwilling or unable to stop the attacks from their territories. It is concluded that the attacks on American personnel in Afghanistan by groups in the tribal areas of Pakistan constitute an armed attack on the USA, and that the Americans were also the victim of a 2010 armed attack from AQAP in Yemen. The USA has not, however, suffered an armed attack from the hands of al Shabaab in Somalia or from anyone in Libya that can justify the capture of a Libyan citizen in October 2013.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of Conflict and Security Law |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 211-250 |
| Number of pages | 40 |
| ISSN | 1467-7954 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2014 |
