Hans Koechler -- The United Nations and International Terrorism: Challenges to Collective Security, Shanghai, 15 November 2002

(I) Preliminary remarks

Ever since its foundation, the predicament of the United Nations Organization has been that the enforcement of the general principles of international law as set out in the Charter has only been possible when and to the extent by which the interests of the Security Council’s permanent members allowed such measures to be undertaken. Obviously, this was the main reason for the de facto paralysis of the Security Council during the Cold War, a period which was characterized by the bipolar power structure resulting from the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The obstacles to consistent and efficient mechanisms of collective security are becoming even more serious in the present era of unipolarity – when the international community is faced with the rise of global terrorism in the course of the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. At the dawn of the 21^st century, the issue of terrorism constitutes the most serious challenge to the world organization’s supremacy in matters of enforcing common legal principles, i.e. as guarantor of the international rule of law vis-à-vis all nations, small or big, weak or powerful. The way the United Nations deals with this challenge politically – and the legal and eventually military methods the organization uses, or authorizes, in its collective action against terrorism on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter – will define its future role in the global system. Indeed, the world organization will have to walk a tightrope trying to balance the power politics of sovereign nation-states – particularly those that enjoy the status of permanent members in the Security Council – against the requirements of collective action as set out in the Charter.

Under the conditions of the present unipolar world order, the punctum saliens of the United Nations' credibility will be how the organization now facing the global terrorist challenge, will enforce the rule of law in a universal and cohesive manner so that the principle of the sovereign equality of states, including the principle of non-interference, will be upheld and all actors in the international arena will be subjected to the same standards of legitimacy of their political actions vis-à-vis one another. If the organization succeeds in this mission, it will then be possible to preserve world peace and “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” which is the goal solemnly proclaimed in the Charter’s Preamble. This goal has gained new significance under the circumstances of what the most powerful member state calls the "global war on terror."

This challenge, however, cannot be met if one has to rely solely on instruments and legal procedures created on the basis of the power balance of 1945, i.e. by means of a Charter reflecting the necessities of an earlier era. The United Nations Organization can only accomplish its mission if it adapts itself to the newly emerging global situation through a genuine democratic reform[1] – along the lines neither of bipolarity nor of unipolarity, but of multipolarity – and by establishing a comprehensive and consistent system of international humanitarian law in which norms regulating the definition and punishment of the crime of terrorism will form an integral part.

Neither the unipolar power structure of the present world order nor the terrorist threat to peace and stability on the national or international level must be accepted as fait accompli. As in 1945, the United Nations Organization, at the beginning of the Third Millennium, should unite the peoples of the globe in the search for a comprehensive system of norms that encompasses modern state practice and is, at the same time, compatible with the requirements for a peaceful international order in which no state, group, or individual will be exempt from the application of the law. This is the essence of the international rule of law. In such a system, there can be no domaine réservé of international action with impunity, neither for a state nor for a movement acting against a state, whether it does so with the support of a third state or not. One state’s terrorist cannot be the other state’s freedom fighter and vice-versa – no international actor, not even a permanent member of the Security Council, can be above the law. Even if it may sound highly idealistic or utopian in the present state of international affairs, in the eyes of the citizens of the world, the very legitimacy of the world organization will depend on a consistent and persistent commitment to the rule of law. Such a commitment is the essence of the policy of collective security as laid out in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

(II) The doctrine of collective security and challenges posed by transnational terrorism

The doctrine of collective security is the very foundation upon which the United Nations Organization is built. It is based on the joint commitment of member states to the international rule of law. The respective provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter have been the cornerstones of the multilateral security system that was envisaged by the sponsoring governments of the United Nations in 1945. That system has been considered essential for the preservation of peace ever since the end of World War II and has been defined as one of the basic elements of modern international law because it incorporates the principles of sovereign equality (Art. 2 [1] UN Charter) and the non-use of force in relations between states (Art. 2 [4]). It was meant to ensure, once and for all, that the jus ad bellum, which previously (i.e. in the period prior to World War I) had been considered a prerogative of the sovereign state, would never again be incorporated into the system of rules governing international relations.[2]

The United Nations Charter is based on the principles of collective security and the functioning of the organization depends upon the co-operation among sovereign nation-states, first and foremost the permanent members of the Security Council. According to Art. 24 of the Charter, that body bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Although terrorism (including transborder terrorism) is not a new phenomenon, large-scale international terrorism, in the context of highly complex and increasingly global networks, constitutes an entirely new challenge to the system of collective security as represented by the United Nations Organization.[3] By its very nature, transborder terrorism cannot exclusively be dealt with within the framework of an international order defined by the nation-state. Naturally, effective strategies cannot be developed by states in isolation from each other. Except in cases of state terrorism, where specific state responsibility can be established,[4] governmental authorities cannot automatically be held accountable for terrorist acts originating from their territory. Governments are often not aware of their state's territory being used as "staging ground" for terrorist acts in other countries and on other continents.

To a certain extent, the new brand of international terrorism referred to above (in the form of regional and transcontinental networks) is also a phenomenon of globalization.[5] This kind of terrorism not only exploits the global availability of information infrastructure for its own logistical purposes, but also makes use of it for political mobilization.

If the global anti-terrorist struggle (including the development of an integrated political and security strategy to combat terrorism) is left to the nation-states alone, the world will be confronted with the real danger of uncoordinated action by a multitude of sovereign actors. In such a scenario, each actor will define its strategies on the basis of an essentially unilateral threat assessment and may eventually carry out preemptive measures according to that threat assessment. This is a recipe for global anarchy. In this regard, the United States' new security doctrine, proclaimed in 2002,[6] is an ominous sign of things to come.

(III) Normative elements of a consistent anti-terrorist strategy

The moral dilemma of terrorism in the context of international power politics has been aptly described by Chalmers Johnson: "Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable."[7] An entirely new approach is needed by the international community in order to tackle a challenge to the global order of peace that, by its very definition and strategy, transcends the confines of the nation-state and cannot be defined in the traditional framework of conflicts between nation-states.

Efforts towards a consistent and, for that matter, efficient counter-terrorist strategy on the global level should include, inter alia, the following measures:

The General Assembly of the United Nations should agree on a comprehensive definition of terrorism which can be used in a legal context and can serve as basis for joint enforcement action under Chapter VII.[8] Any credible counter-terrorist strategy must be based on the international rule of law, which requires a legally sound definition that is not arbitrarily established by individual states according to their constantly changing and often mutually exclusive national interests. However, because of those interests, the respective efforts of the General Assembly's Sixth Committee (Legal Committee) have been in vain. A definition agreed upon between UN member states could provide for, inter alia, the inclusion of acts of terrorism in the list of war crimes defined by the Geneva Conventions of 1949; furthermore, the definition might consider an act of terrorism as the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime" as earlier suggested by A. P. Schmid in his 1992 report to the UN Crime Prevention Office.[9] Such a procedure would contribute to unifying the systems of international humanitarian and international criminal law.
On the basis of a consensual definition, United Nations member states will be enabled to develop a unified strategic approach to the phenomenon of international terrorism. This will imply that the international community no longer accepts a constellation in which one state's terrorist is another state's freedom fighter and vice-versa. A policy of double standards defeats the very goals which a counter-terrorist strategy professes to pursue. In order for a counter-terrorist policy to be credible and effective at the same time, the phenomenon of terrorism must be evaluated according to unified criteria.
The existing international (United Nations) covenants on combating specific forms of international terrorism should be integrated into one comprehensive international convention against terrorism.[10] Such an undertaking is of paramount importance if what some vaguely call the "global war on terror" is to be distinguished from an essentially anarchical system of self-help where each state unilaterally decides on appropriate anti-terrorist measures including preventive war. If the international community is serious about preserving peace and enforcing the international rule of law, it must "legalize" the global anti-terrorist struggle by providing a normative framework in the form of a comprehensive convention on terrorism.[11]
A clear distinction has to be made between acts of terrorism and acts of resistance by national liberation movements.[12] The use of violence in connection with a struggle of national liberation is not in and of itself a terrorist act. International law recognizes the inherent right of resistance against foreign occupation.[13] This right is intrinsically linked to the inalienable right of self-determination,[14] a fact which has been expressly stated by the United Nations General Assembly.[15] What has to be made clear is that while a particular liberation movement may not necessarily be terrorist (as long as it serves a just cause of national liberation), the means applied by that very movement, such as the deliberate targeting of civilians as in the case of "suicide bombings," may well be terrorist. This will also be the case in regard to an indiscriminate use of force by regular armies such as "carpet bombings" (often condemned as "terror bombings"): they unavoidably victimize the civilian population. Casualties are euphemistically referred to as "collateral damage;" accordingly, there is a tendency to avoid the term "terrorism" in such cases and to categorize the use of force against civilians by regular armies in a more "neutral" way as "war crimes" although, in ethical terms, such transgressions are of the same quality as politically motivated acts of violence against civilians by non-state actors.[16]
A credible approach towards combating international terrorism must first and foremost be founded on general ethical principles (including those of human rights) which, in the modern understanding of international legality, form part of the jus cogens of general international law. One of these principles is that, however noble or legally justified a cause may be, "the end never justifies the means."

In view of the principles outlined above, a basic obstacle to a consistent and sustainable counter-terrorist strategy lies in the denial of reality by the political élites of influential countries, particularly permanent members of the UN Security Council, as regards the causes of terrorism. Many decision-makers are still determined to use the labeling of acts of violence – or entire movements linked to such acts – as "terrorist" as a political tool; this kind of classification often serves narrowly-defined national interests as evidenced, inter alia, by the "list of foreign terrorist organizations" established by the United States administration.[17]

In spite of the tragedy of September 11, 2001 and atrocities in Europe and other parts of the world that followed it, governments have still not learned the lessons of history; they stubbornly refuse to deal with acts of politically motivated violence – the illegality and immorality of which is defined by the means, not necessarily by the causes – in a consistent manner. Through their parochial approach of refusing to disassociate a political cause from the application of the means, those governments have undermined a joint and cohesive counter-terrorist strategy. By this attitude, they have sacrificed the bonum commune (in the sense of effective international prevention of terrorist acts) for the sake of power politics, thus undermining global solidarity vis-à-vis the terrorist threat. In many instances, the classification of a group or movement whether as "terrorist" or as a genuine movement of national liberation, depends upon the national interests of the country that undertakes that classification.

The conflicting approaches towards the disputes in or around Palestine, Chechnya, and the Philippines to mention a few, are a vivid illustration of this policy of double standards which, in spite of statements to the contrary, is still a characteristic element of international relations in the framework of the United Nations Security Council. A consistent strategy to combat international terrorism on the basis of unified criteria will only be possible if the international community agrees on a comprehensive convention on terrorism.[18]

(IV) The need for a comprehensive approach towards the phenomenon of terrorism

In order to make the above-described strategy credible (in terms of applying a unified system of norms) and efficient at the same time, the phenomenon of terrorism has to be dealt with at all levels: legal, political, social, economic and cultural. The approach has to be inclusive, i.e. it must not artificially separate the previously mentioned aspects of the terrorist threat.

As far as the legal level is concerned, international criminal jurisdiction should be established for the crime of terrorism in addition to strengthening the procedures of domestic jurisdiction. Generally, terrorism should be situated within the domain of universal jurisdiction. The states parties to the Rome Statute[19] should consider incorporating the prosecution of terrorist acts into the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) – a step which is not necessarily detrimental to national sovereignty insofar as the ICC's jurisdiction is defined on the basis of complementarity with national jurisdiction.[20] All United Nations member states that are seriously committed to combating terrorism should consider joining the International Criminal Court to document their unequivocal commitment to the international rule of law and to the principle of personal accountability (without which any counter-terrorist strategy lacks efficiency). By this step, the states having proclaimed a "global war on terror"[21] would be particularly able to demonstrate the credibility of their efforts.

As regards the political, social and economic levels, the root causes of terrorism – whether those lie in injustice, oppression, foreign occupation, colonial subjugation, denial of basic human rights – have to be clearly identified before they can be eradicated, i.e. before a meaningful counter-terrorist strategy can be developed. Turning a blind eye to the motives for terrorist acts which are, whether directly or indirectly, related to these causes, amounts to dangerous self-betrayal.

Dealing with the symptoms can only be seen as an emergency measure, but it will never be sufficient to prevent terrorist acts in the future. If one addresses the symptoms alone, the "war on terrorism" will never end. It has been proven in the course of the Middle East confrontation as well as through the conflicts in South-East Asia that a mere security approach will inevitably fail.[22] A comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism must go beyond mere police, military, or intelligence measures, even though they may be effective in particular cases and under specific circumstances. Equal importance has to be given to the search for the motives behind terrorist acts. Such an effort will enable a state to specifically address the causes of grievances and frustrations that may drive people to engage in terrorist violence which by the perpetrators as well as by the sympathizing local population is often seen as legitimate resistance and part of a strategy of national liberation.[23]

Furthermore, as regards the cultural level, the Western paradigm of the "clash of civilizations" must not become a self-fulfilling prophecy.[24] Comprehensive efforts will have to be undertaken to promote a dialogue especially between the Western and Muslim worlds to prevent the hardening of stereotypes that in turn may trigger more violent action. The escalation of the crisis between the Arab and Muslim world on the one hand and the West on the other in the course of the events of 2003 is an ominous sign of things to come – unless enlightened people on both sides are courageous enough to identify the root causes of the increasing cultural and political alienation between the two communities.

(V) The indispensable role of the United Nations in combating international terrorism

Unlike individual states acting through unilateral measures that are implemented according to narrow national interests, the United Nations Organization can play a genuine role in combating international terrorism and must assume this responsibility in terms of its overall responsibility for collective security. It is incumbent upon the United Nations, not individual member states, to determine the "rules of the game" for consistent and efficient multilateral action against terrorism. If one considers the far-reaching implications for global security and stability, this is indeed a challenging task.

Should the organization fail in that mission, it will be gradually sidelined and marginalized and may finally be declared obsolete. The predicament that befell the League of Nations in the period prior to World War II has been repeatedly referred to in this regard.[25]

However, the United Nations must not be "hijacked" by powerful nation-states for their own anti-terrorist agenda either. The world organization must not be seen as a tool for the execution of unilateral policies providing a "multilateral cover" for the actions of the most powerful member state(s) in the Security Council. If this would be allowed to happen, the legitimacy of collective action against terrorism would be seriously undermined. As evidenced in the role played by the United Nations Security Council in the Gulf war of 1991, this danger is a reality.[26]

The doctrine of collective security, as set out in Chapter VII of the UN Charter, will have to be reasserted in regard to its basic principle of multilateral action and, at the same time, reevaluated and adapted to the new circumstances referred to above:

In all matters of international terrorism, non-state actors have to be clearly identified in distinction from nation-state actors.

Eventual collective enforcement measures (including the use of armed force) against non-state actors must not be considered, per se, as an infringement upon national sovereignty.

In that regard, collective enforcement action in matters of terrorism must not be confused with "humanitarian intervention" which, in most cases, is not compatible with international law.[27]

As far as the actual implementation of resolutions on terrorism is concerned, the Security Council as supreme executive organ of the United Nations must in no way cede terrain to its most powerful member states, i.e. the permanent members. The execution of anti-terrorist measures decided by the Security Council must be under the direct control of the Council – and not of individual states as "sub-contractors" or self-declared "sheriffs" of international security.

In order to avoid arbitrariness and international anarchy, unified legal standards in terms of general international as well as criminal law must be applied in dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism.

In the future, all matters of personal criminal responsibility related to acts of international terrorism should be dealt with in the framework of universal jurisdiction and, whenever possible, in subordination to a permanent institution of international criminal justice such as the ICC (which operates on the basis of complementarity with national jurisdiction). Instead of "military commissions" established on the basis of domestic jurisdiction (such as the Guantanamo "courts"),[28] only institutions that are truly independent – i.e. operate on the basis of a genuine separation of powers – should prosecute international terrorist acts. In view of its complementary jurisdiction with national courts, the International Criminal Court, although legally not being a United Nations organ, should be accepted as arbiter by the member states of the United Nations in all matters related to the prosecution of crimes of international terrorism. The Security Council should constructively cooperate with this institution, not block it in favour of the parochial interests of one or more permanent members.[29] Similarly, the judiciaries of individual member states should coordinate their prosecutorial activities with the ICC on the basis of complementarity.

Finally, as precondition for a morally credible and politically consistent anti-terrorist policy (one that integrates police, intelligence and military measures into a comprehensive political-legal framework), the United Nations Organization must reinvigorate its almost abandoned efforts towards the establishment of a just global order according to the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1974 on the establishment of a "New International Economic Order."[30] Unless the member states, particularly those of the industrialized world, address the issue of poverty, the social injustice and economic imbalance between the developing countries and the rest of the world, the grievances and frustrations of large sectors of the world's population will never end and will continue to fuel highly destructive political emotions that, in turn, may lead to desperate acts of violence. Although it is true that understanding the causes of terrorist violence is not equivalent to condoning such acts of violence, which are intrinsically immoral and inherently illegal, a credible counter-terrorist strategy cannot satisfy itself with moral condemnation and punitive measures alone. A reactive approach has to be complemented by a proactive strategy. Turning a blind eye to the social and economic causes of terrorism has been one of the main reasons why the international community has been utterly incapable of containing the global spread of terrorism so far.

In essence, a policy oriented towards global justice, not global revenge, is the main weapon in the joint struggle against international terrorism. The new forms of transnational violence that are commonly described as "terrorism" are putting the modern state system of collective security to its most severe test since the establishment of the United Nations after the end of World War II.[31] In order to be able to pass this test, that system must be embedded in a comprehensive network of social as well as economic security.

The best form of preemption is not a strategy for a "global war on terror" implemented through a series of "preventive wars" (such as the ones waged against Afghanistan and Iraq), which by definition can never be won,[32] but a comprehensive strategy of global economic co-operation based on the principles of fairness and equal opportunities for all, combined with sustained efforts towards civilizational dialogue,[33] and political partnership among all regions of the globe on the basis of the goals enunciated in the Preamble to the United Nations Charter.

ENDNOTES

[1] Specific reform proposals have been presented by the Second International Conference on a More Democratic United Nations (CAMDUN-2) in Vienna in September 1991. See Hans Koechler (ed.), The United Nations and the New World Order. Studies in International Relations, XVIII. Vienna: International Progress Organization, 1992.

[2] On the details of the abrogation of the jus ad bellum and the development of modern international law see the author's analysis "The development of international law and the prohibition of the use of force in the 20^th century," in: Hans Koechler, Global Justice or Global Revenge? International Criminal Justice at the Crossroads. Vienna/New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 279-290.

[3] For a description of the United Nations' role in combating international terrorism see also the author's analysis "The United Nations, International Rule of Law and Terrorism," in: Hans Koechler, Manila Lectures 2002. Terrorism and the Quest for a Just World Order. Manila: Foundation for Social Justice, 2002, pp. 1-28.

[4] On the problem of state terrorism see Hans Koechler (ed.), Terrorism and National Liberation. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Question of Terrorism. Frankfurt a.M./Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1988.

[5] On the new structure of international relations in the era of globalization see Hans Koechler (ed.), Globality versus Democracy. The Changing Nature of International Relations in the Era of Globalization. Studies in International Relations, XXV. Vienna: International Progress Organization, 2000.

[6] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. September 2002. Washington, DC: The White House, 2002.

[7] Blowback. The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Owl Books, 2004, p. 33.

[8] For details see Hans Koechler, Global Justice or Global Revenge? pp. 341ff.

[9] Quoted according to: "Definitions of Terrorism": United Nations, Office on Drugs and Crime, at www.odccp.org/odccp/terrorism_definitions.html.

[10] At present, there exist 12 United Nations conventions dealing with terrorism. In addition, 7 regional conventions have been adopted within the framework, inter alia, of the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of American States, and the Organization of African Unity.

[11] A Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism has been adopted on 16 November 1937 by the League of Nations' "International Conference on the Repression of Terrorism," but it has never entered into force because of the lack of ratifications by member states.

[12] For a definition of terrorism that includes that distinction see "The Geneva Declaration on Terrorism, 21 March 1987," in: Hans Koechler (ed.), Terrorism and National Liberation, pp. 307-313.

[13] This right is also implied in the wording of Art. 4 (A) (2), including the term "organized resistance movements," of the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949).

[14] See Art. 1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (resolution 2200A [XXI] of 16 December 1966): "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." – See also UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

[15] See resolution 2649 (XXV) of 30 November 1970 by which the General Assembly "affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal." The General Assembly has been particularly specific about this right in regard to the Palestinian people. For details see Hans Koechler, "The Palestinian People's Right of Self-determination: Basis of Peace in the Middle East, " in: IKIM Journal, vol. 7, no. 2 (July-December 1999), pp. 45-58.

[16] As regards the legal definition of the term "terrorism," the proposal by A. P. Schmid referred to above would do away with this inconsistency of classification and would provide for an integrated approach in terms of international humanitarian law.

[17] The U.S. Department of State publishes each year a "Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations." The "legal criteria for designation" are exclusively defined by the United States and reflect the provisions of the "USA PATRIOT Act of 2001." For the current list see the fact sheet published by the U.S. Department of State, Office of Counterterrorism, Washington, DC, April 22, 2004.

[18] On the need for a comprehensive and consistent approach to international terrorism in the context of the global realities of today see the International Progress Organization's The Baku Declaration on Global Dialogue and Peaceful Co-existence among Nations and Threats Posed by International Terrorism, Baku, Azerbaijan, 9 November 2001, in: Hans Koechler, Global Justice or Global Revenge?, pp. 380-386.

[19] The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 and entered into force on 1 July 2002.

[20] For details see the author's analysis: Global Justice or Global Revenge? esp. pp. 345f.

[21] On the problematic nature of this notion (which blurs the concept of war in international law) see Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Carlisle, PA, December 2003.

[22] See also the lecture delivered by the author at the invitation of the National Police Commission of the Philippines, Manila, 12 March 2002: "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. Towards a Comprehensive Approach," in: Hans Koechler, Manila Lectures 2002. Terrorism and the Quest for a Just World Order, pp. 29-42.

[23] In his far-reaching analysis of U.S. power politics and its implications for global order (Blowback. The Costs and Consequences of American Empire) Chalmers Johnson emphasizes the need for such a comprehensive approach. In his description of the imperial policies of the United States Johnson interprets terrorism according to a scheme of actio–reactio for which he uses the term "blowback": "The most direct and obvious form of blowback often occurs when the victims fight back after a secret American bombing, or a U.S.-sponsored campaign of state terrorism …" (op. cit., p. 9)

[24] Particularly since the events of September 11, 2001, Samuel Huntington's essay on "The Clash of Civilizations" (Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3 [1993], pp. 22-49) has been perceived by many in this sense – and has indeed been exploited for the purpose of strengthening anti-Islamic stereotypes.

[25] See Matthew Rothschild, "Bush Trashes the United Nations," in: The Progressive, April 2003, at www.progressive.org/april03/roth0403.html. See also: Anthony Westell, "Another League of Nations," in: Toronto Globe & Mail, 21 September 2002, p. A19.

[26] For details see Hans Koechler (ed.), The Iraq Crisis and the United Nations. Power Politics vs. the International Rule of Law. Memoranda and declarations of the International Progress Organization. Studies in International Relations, XXVIII. Vienna: International Progress Organization, 2004.

[27] On the problematic legal nature of humanitarian intervention see the author's treatise: The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics. Is the Revival of the Doctrine of "Just War" Compatible with the International Rule of Law? Studies in International Relations, XXVI. Vienna: International Progress Organization, 2001.

[28] On the legal problems of the "military commissions" at Guantanamo Bay see Jordan J. Paust, There Is No Need to Revise the Laws of War in Light of September 11^th. ASIL Task Force Papers. Washington, DC: The American Society of International Law (ASIL) – Task Force on Terrorism. November 2002.

[29] See Hans Koechler, Global Justice or Global Revenge? esp. pp. 254ff.

[30] Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 2229^th plenary meeting on 1 May 1974. See Hans Koechler (ed.), The New International Economic Order. Philosophical and Socio-cultural Implications. Studies in International Relations, III. Guildford: Guildford Educational Press, 1980.

[31] On the rationale of collective security in the framework of the post-war order see Hans Koechler, The United Nations and International Democracy. The Quest for UN Reform. Studies in International Relations, XXII. Vienna: International Progress Organization, 1997, Chapter I.

[32] Jeffrey Record states that most of the declared objectives of the "global war on terror" "are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security." (Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, loc. cit., p. v.)

[33] Cf. the author's analysis: "The Clash of Civilizations Revisited," in: Hans Koechler and Gudrun Grabher (eds.), Civilizations – Conflict or Dialogue? Studies in International Relations, XXIV. Vienna: International Progress Organization, 1999. – See also The Baku Declaration on Global Dialogue and Peaceful Co-existence among Nations and Threats Posed by International Terrorism, loc. cit.

I.P.O. RESEARCH PAPERS

Dr. Hans Koechler

Professor and Chairman, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Innsbruck/Austria