| Review of: | The 'war on terror' and the framework of international law by Helen Duffy |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Francesca Klug |
| Reviewed in: | International Affairs |
| Date accepted online: | 25/09/2006 |
| Published in print: | Volume 82, Issue 3, Pages 575-617 |
Book Review: International law and organization
'What I cannot understand,' said Tony Blair on 9 November 2005, 'is how we can say that the civil liberties of a small number of terrorist suspects ... come before the fundamental civil liberty in this country of protection from terrorism.'
If the Prime Minister were right in his barely disguised critique of human rights law, he would have a point. In fact, as Helen Duffy brilliantly explains in her book
As Duffy explains, the European Court of Human Rights has established that 'where "terrorism" results in serious violations of human rights, the state has a responsibility to establish an effective counter terrorism strategy' that comprises both 'preventative measures' and 'thorough investigation and accountability after the event'. This includes 'providing timely information concerning dangers to human security arising from terrorist threats'.
The application and scope of these obligations are complex and Duffy skilfully weaves through the labyrinth of relevant 'soft' and 'hard' laws to clarify who has responsibility for what and when. This is not law in the abstract. As the title of the book implies, Duffy seeks to apply the relevant framework of international law to the raw realities of Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. For example, while it is questionable that 'the Afghan government exercised the necessary control over Al-Qaeda to be responsible for' the 3,000 deaths in New York and Washington on September 11 2001, this does not absolve the Taleban from other international obligations in respect to its relationship with the Al-Qaeda network.
The overall purpose of the book is to identify, in accessible terms, 'the international legal framework' that applies to the events that have flowed from 9/11. Duffy asks the questions that we have all been asking. How should we understand the September 11 attacks: as a crime or an act of war? What law, if any, governs the 'war on terror'? What is the legal significance of labelling someone a 'terrorist'?
Her answers are spread across three main sections. The first discusses the meaning of terrorism and analyses the implications for current developments of there being no universally accepted definition of the term. The second explores the relevance of international criminal law to recent events, to address issues such as war crimes, 'crimes against humanity' and state aggression. The third section usefully, and almost uniquely, clarifies the distinction and overlap between humanitarian law, which applies to armed conflicts, and human rights law, which has domestic and international effect in peace time as well as war.
If there are any loopholes in this impressively comprehensive account, it is the absence of an in-depth discussion of the claim that 'humanitarian intervention' can provide a legitimate basis for unilateral state intervention where the UN fails to act, notably in the context of Iraq. There is also insufficient account taken of the implications of 'failing states', unable or unwilling to control paramilitary organizations that operate from their soil, since Duffy claims that there are 'no gaping holes' in the framework of international law.
Duffy demonstrates with enormous skill and erudition the 'selectivity' and 'double standards' employed by the US administration and its allies to conduct their 'war on terror'. Anyone, of whatever background, who wants to engage in debate about the lawfulness and effectiveness of this 'war' should be armed with this book-an essential weapon for victory.