Social Science Research Council

Organized by the Project on International Law and International Relations

The workshop brought together a diverse range of scholars, policy makers and practitioners who presented prepared papers covering different aspects of the "war on terrorism." The "war on terrorism" has redefined U.S. foreign policy, as well as relations between Europe, the United States, and much of the rest of the world. Virtually every aspect of this "war" has significant legal dimensions, just as it does for international relations. The workshop examined several of these key aspects, regarding them as problems of international law and international relations, attempting to parse the interaction between law and global politics.

9:00 AM Continental Breakfast

9:30 AM Welcome and Introduction - John Tirman, Program Director, SSRC

9:45 AM PANEL I: CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: Defining the Threat of Terrorism

Chair: Martha Finnemore, George Washington University

This session will chart the evolution of the different legal frameworks regarding terrorism, both national and international, analyzing the way in which different political contexts, including national emergencies, have determined such evolution. To what extent, for example, are terrorism laws shaped by perceptions of threat? To what extent are they integrated with foreign and military policy? Using a political and IR context, this panel will regard the content of international treaties and examine which legal strategies have become priorities.

Speakers:

- Audrey Kurth Cronin, Visiting Associate Professor, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University, on historical and political conceptualization of the evolution of the concept of terrorism
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Antonio Perez, Catholic University School of Law, on legal frameworks regarding terrorism

- Jean-Paul Laborde, Terrorism Prevention Branch, Center for International Crime Prevention, UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UNODCCP)

- Fiona Adamson, Stanford University, on terrorism, non-state actors and transnational mobilization
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Jeffrey Checkel, University of Oslo (Discussant)

12:30 PM Lunch

2:00 PM PANEL II: RESPONDING TO TERRORISM I: Dispersed Networks of Political Violence as Problems for International Law and International Relations

Chair: Chandra Sriram, International Peace Academy

Understanding how terrorist networks operate---itself an under-researched subject---and how they are related to each other, to states, and to organized crime, has several implications for legal and IR scholarship. Among the practical considerations is how dealing with terrorism differs from dealing with transnational criminal syndicates. For theorists, there are many potential insights, not least how motivating ideologies change with long-term involvement in common crime (drug-running, arms dealing, money laundering, etc.) undertaken to finance the original purposes of the organization. An example of the legal and political problems that terrorist networks pose is the matter of financing of terrorism. Similarly, how to prosecute terrorists and their supporters are raising new questions: What methods and procedures, and in which fora, should alleged terrorists or conspirators be tried? How are roles of international crime agencies (courts, police, etc.) changing in the "war on terrorism," and are these roles enhancing or diminishing international cooperation, transparency, due process, and other liberal values?

Speakers:

- Thomas Biersteker, Watson Institute, Brown University, on financing
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Lee Wolosky, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP; former Director for transnational threats on the National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush, on terrorist networks
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Doug Farah, Foreign correspondent/West Africa, the Washington Post, on financing terrorism and blood diamonds
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Jose Barbaccia, Federal Prosecutor, Argentina, on the role of international crime agencies and international cooperation

3:30 PM Coffee Break

3:45 PM PANEL III: THE NEW "THREAT" FROM IMMIGRANTS

Chair: Peter Spiro, Hofstra Law

This panel will examine the relationship between migration and terrorism. It will study the impact that the war on terrorism has had on immigration policies, paying special attention to the protections that both national and international law grant to immigrants all along the different stages of their migration, and how those rules have been applied by different states. The panel will also look at the two particular topics: diaspora communities, and refugees and IDPs.

Speakers:

- David D. Cole, Georgetown University Law Center, on antiterrorist legislation in the US
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Imtiaz Ahmed, University of Dhaka, on refugee camps and their connection to political violence

- Yossi Shain, Georgetown University, on diaspora communities and new security dilemmas

5:00 PM End 

9:00 AM Continental Breakfast

9:15 AM PANEL IV: NEW SECURITY CONTEXTS - NEW DOCTRINES? Understanding the implications of the "Bush Doctrine"

Chair: Tom Biersteker, Watson Institute, Brown University

Although still developing, the Bush Doctrine seems to assert U.S. latitude to use whatever force is necessary to destroy terrorist networks and the governments that fund or harbor them. The imperative of regime change was at the core of Bush's State of the Union address; apparently, Bush has embraced as a central feature of his administration the deployment of U.S. power and influence to challenge and delegitimize the governments of those nations who are "enemies of freedom." Richard Haass, Director of Policy Planning in the State Department, describes, "the emergence of a new principle or body of ideas---I don't know if I would call it a doctrine---about what you might call the limits of sovereignty. Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is to not support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. Other governments, including the United States, gain the right to intervene. In the case of terrorism, this can even lead to a right to preventive, or peremptory, self-defense. You essentially can act in anticipation if you have grounds to think it's a question of when, and not if, you're going to be attacked." The Bush Doctrine follows closely the American-centric worldview in which the United States unilaterally pursues its objectives, or, in Stanley Hoffman's phrase, how multilateralism has been transformed into American "bossism." Is this another case of hard-edged American realism dressed up with a post-hoc attempt to devise legal and political justifications? Understanding the full implications of this new doctrine requires a look at historical precedents and the political and security goals at stake.

Speakers:

- Stephen Schlesinger, President, World Policy Institute, on the doctrine's emergence
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Nicholas Wheeler, Department of International Politics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, on the relationship between the Bush Doctrine and the idea of "sovereignty as responsibility."
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

11:00 AM Coffee Break

11:15 AM PANEL V: RESPONDING TO TERRORISM II: The Use of Military Force

Chair: Tom Biersteker, Watson Institute, Brown University

Continuing the earlier exploration of the Bush Doctrine, this panel will assess whether international law on the use of military force faces a unique set of circumstances that warrants a change in the legal rules that govern war. The law of self-defense has traditionally been construed as implying an armed attack by a state on another state, and resort to force in self-defense has been subjected to stringent conditions (i.e., necessity, aimed at repelling armed attack, proportional to this purpose, temporary, in compliance with principles of humanitarian law). However, if we are dealing with a new kind of threat and a new kind of war that require states to be on the offense, should then the law of self-defense be set aside? How cogent are the arguments in favor of broadening the right of self-defense? This panel will address these issues, particularly notions of self-defense as justifying pre-emptive attacks on states harboring terrorist organizations. The issue of "harboring states" gives rise to several problems, such as how to delimit the number of states that can be targeted depending on the "degree of complicity," the admissible means in that use of self-defense, the timing and duration, and so forth.

Speakers:

- Daniel Benjamin, CSIS, former National Security Council staff during the Clinton Administration, on 1998 strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan after the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

- Barnett Rubin, Center on International Cooperation, New York University, on the war in Afghanistan
(Click here for transcript of presentation).

12:30 PM Lunch

2:00 PM PANEL VI: CASE STUDY SECTION

Chair: John Tirman, GSC-SSRC

An especially important international case is the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. This military campaign was explicitly justified on antiterrorist grounds, and met international criticism because of, among other reasons, the treatment of prisoners who were regarded as terrorists and were denied prisoner of war status. This case could also be helpful in analyzing the outcomes of antiterrorism campaigns (i.e., the formation of Hezbollah and, more indirectly, Hamas, following the invasion of Lebanon).

Speakers:

- Jeroen Gunning, Department of International Politics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, on '82 invasion decision making processes and outcomes of the campaign

- Theodor Hanf, Arnold Bergstraesser Institute for Socio Cultural Research, Frankfurt, Germany

3:30 PM Coffee Break

3:45 PM PANEL VII: LOOKING AHEAD: A NEW ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Chair: Anne-Marie Slaughter, Princeton University

9/11 has produced new international dynamics and sweeping rethinking in the fields of international politics and international law. While 9/11 might at the very first moment have been feared as a new obstacle to the advancement of international law, international institutions, and multilateralism, it may be proving otherwise today. It is conceivable, in the long run, that 9/11 will promote, rather than limit, the role of international law in international relations, but it may be a sharply redefined role. This final session will identify questions for further empirical legal and social science research on the roles of international legal instruments and institutions in the "war on terrorism," and how and why such roles reflect or challenge parallel, emerging trends in international relations.

4:45 PM Closing Remarks - John Tirman

5:00 PM Departures