It's War, Jim, But Not As We Know It: A ``Reality-Check'' for International Laws of War?

International Humanitarian Laws of Armed Conflict effectively prohibit the use of terror-violence as a means or method of warfare in all circumstances of armed conflict. However, as new ``terrorist'' enemies do not appear to share this humanitarian consensus, it becomes crucial to contextualise accurately any characterisation of the recent ``war'' on ``global terror'' as a ``war'' to which International Humanitarian Law can attach. What needs to be remembered, first, is that technological innovation can destabilise accepted frameworks for waging war. Thus, any laws intended to curtail the use of particular means and methods of warfare will reflect the contemporaneous environment within which such laws were formulated. Secondly, modern laws of war evolved from nineteenth century reciprocal pacts designed to ensure minimal levels of restraint between ``civilised'' peoples. While any strict contractual approach to mutuality-in-restraint has been superceded in the post-1945 era by more universalised obligations, the interests reflected in this original mutuality of interest warrant examination when distinguishing today between ``justifiable'' and ``unjustifiable'', or ``licit'' and ``illicit'', uses of violence.