International Law and the War on Terrorism

The international law pertaining to armed conflicts is of two general sorts. The jus ad bellum, or laws pertaining to war, relates to conflicts as a whole. Perhaps reflecting "just war" concepts, this body of law addresses, among other matters, the justifications for the outbreak of hostilities. Thejus in bello, or law of warfare, on the other hand, considers those rules of the law of war relating to the conduct of actual hostilities and to the treatment of prisoners and the civilian population. Both concepts are now at issue. During the Iraq Wa r, the United States has been said to disregard international law regarding the outbreak of hostilities, by not securing an unambiguous Security Council resolution as required by the United Nations Charter. At the same time, since hostilities began, the United States has been at best selective in adherence to the Geneva Conventions. At the outset, some observers seem ed to take for granted that with the war on terrorism we are in a new situation and the old rules are inadequate. Some argued that the rules were an impediment to swift and effective action against a new enemy. However, opinions are changing, as the underlying wisdom of the laws of war and the price paid for disregarding them have become clearer. In this essay I take a brief look at both sets of rules and some of the reasons for their existence.