The international law is under the implementation of the United Nations Charter in which the majority of the nations of the world recognizes it and follows the principles set that promotes a consciousness of equality and fairness under any circumstances that could threaten freedom. Basically, the existence and continuous recognition of the United Nations by its members is the validity of freedom and lawfulness in which the countries could function with the protection of the majority due to the collective adherence to the treaties. One of these treaties would include acts of peace in which countries should respect the autonomy and internal leadership of other countries under any circumstances. The use of force is one issue that is meticulously under constant monitoring and is only utilized and allowed by the organization under circumstances that it serves as the best option to help the country maintain freedom. The doctrine of self defense is integrated in the treaty which states that acts of war should be with the purpose of maintaining the safety of the state and its civilians without compromising the initial premise. This means that war on the basis of personal, societal, economic or political gains is inappropriate and is in violation of the principles of the United Nations. The United Nations being the authority in the relations of the member countries should be constantly informed of the actions to be taken by both countries in which a process of consent and approval should be taken. The criteria of approval would be of moral and ethical basis in which the greater good is considered for the preservation of legality of the treaties that serve as guidelines to maintain the processes in line with each country’s constitution (Pape 21).
The second article of the United Nations Charter limits self defense as an act of a country to protect itself in a way in which proper justification is given. Basically it states that a country should only take military action to a point that would serve the purpose of safeguarding the country’s safety and sovereignty without undermining the constitutional rights of the target country. In line with this is the fifty first article which states that any action taken by a country should be in line with the principles and guidelines of the United Nations. It notes that the act of establishing war and deploying military forces should be first under consultation with the union of leaders from the member nations and would only be valid to a point where the authorities has justified this action as the best course to promote equality and fairness in terms of protection one’s country and the principles by which the United Nations stand.
The use of force is then justified as a legal and ethical act when it is subjected and rendered a necessity under the conditions of articles 2 and 51 of the UN charter. The force is classified as legitimate self defense and is a right of a country to protect their safety, sovereignty and freedom.
The right of the country to use force as an act of self defense is only valid in certain situations. One is that there should have been an attack on their country and state from another country with conflicting interests and has materialized and posed a great danger to the population, political stability and sovereignty. The actual attack should have occurred and show considerable and grave threat from the aggressor in which motive repeated attacks are highly probable due to political conflict that is unresolved and standing. The second is the existence of an imminent attack that is posing to have great damage in the infrastructure, political and social condition of the country. The use of force is also sanctioned by the United Nations. The member nation intending to use force has no right to act by itself without the consent of the UN.
What happened in the United States during December 11 is an armed attack that is unjustified and posed a great danger to the government, population, societal and political stability. The severity of attacks and their implications on society is continually growing and threatens the freedom in the way of living of the people in the free world and disregards the existence of the guidelines set by the authority of the United Nations. The doctrine of self defense has an important role and is constantly being subjected to minor reformation for the preservation of freedom and safety amidst the changing times with complicating circumstances. The September 11 attack is not an independent spur of the moment attack but is evidently a premeditated attack by groups with collaboration and is under the sustenance of Middle Eastern governments. The 9/11 era saw the overhaul of military and secret service utilization and integration of intelligence into their operations. The attacks have been concluded to be connected to the past terrorist acts that have occurred on the western part of the globe. Since the early 1990’s, bomb attacks on the twin towers has been present but has not been significantly given attention which led to compromise of the National Security of the United States. The series and execution of attacks support the fact that there is an organization which implement and formulate a systematic plan to have a high probability of success and damage. Through this realization, the doctrine of self defense is considered a fluid concept but firmly adheres to the ethics and legality by which the principle of freedom is the base.
The doctrine of self defense have evolved to a point for the purpose of countering the enhanced and educated threat by terrorist groups under the indirect influence and control of Islamic and Middle Eastern authorities, which continually increase in accuracy and complexity. The operations conducted by the United States are acts that are solely driven by the motive of safeguarding the people of the country from the terrorist and the nations supporting them. The United Nations have allowed actions such as self defense on the basis of anticipation as a lawful act provided that initial destructive actions have been taken by the target nation wherein the threat is still imminent and has a high probability of repeating itself. In the case of the Operation Enduring Freedom by the United States where in the targets where Taliban and Al Qaeda groups which was proved to be responsible for the September 11 and other previous attacks not only in the World trade center but also in terrorist actions against European nations including the London train station bombing. Further investigation of the Central Intelligence agency has led to the connection of these terrorist groups to the authorities and certain people residing in Iraq and Afghanistan. These connections apparently provided resources and training grounds for the terrorists in the process, making them immediate threats to the national security of the United States. Self defense is not an act by which a nation could take lightly and neglect variables that could prove fatal to their sovereignty. The fact the Iraq and Afghanistan has become grounds for these terrorist to freely conduct their operations and serving as their base, makes them legitimate targets to pursue the freedom of the US outside their country. These actions have been with consent of the United Nations council up to a certain point in which the acts of force is limited only to pursue freedom but not to exact revenge and self justice (Louis 32).
The doctrine of self defense has been shaped greatly by the September 11 attacks. In order to protect the American people, President Bush enacted acts of war against terrorism and dealing with the countries involved. Under the evaluation of the United Nations considering the present factors of terrorism, the doctrine of Self defense permits the act of force for the sole purpose of protecting freedom and safety but without the function of expanding territorial control of the country. Under these conditions is that action outside the country under attack and the implementation of this acts of force against the oppressors in their own country is permitted. The case by which the action of the United States is justified is complex set of events. The fact that the US has experienced an actual armed attack is a ground of immediate action in order to prevent another successive attack. Contrary to the notion that the US did a preemptive self defense, the fact that an attack has occurred validates the reality of the threat and danger. It is in the interest of the self defense to pursue elements that led to the manifestation of the attacks. Since Iraq and Afghanistan have been proven to have sheltered and significantly provided coverage for the terrorist groups, dethroning the present leaders and authorities that have passively allowed these actions is part of defending freedom as a whole. Due to these actions, certain events took place in which the leaders and authorities of target countries have incited war to protect them rather than answering to the responsibility they have regarding the terrorist acts which ensued. Basically, the US is not the sole perpetrator of the war but also Saddam Hussein and the Taliban groups as well. Their action to protect themselves from their acts that defied not only the US but also the United Nations is in itself for personal motive alone without regards to the safety of the population and innocent people.
In conclusion, self defense is an act of protecting freedom without pursuing revenge and political advancement. The act of using force is limited only for the said purpose. The circumstance by which it is justified is complicated and is constantly affected by different factors and variables which shape the course of actions by different nations. In the case of the September 11 attacks, what happened was that terrorism has gone up a level in which the actions necessary require extensive reformation. The necessity now require the military force of the US to pursue justice beyond their territory in order to prevent further attacks which seemed to be planned, funded and implemented with the help of Middle Eastern authorities in which swift action is required.
Pape, Robert. "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," American Political Science Review, 2003.
Louis, Nancy. United We Stand: The War on Terrorism, 2003.