ASIL Insights

Frederic Kirgis writes a very interesting article regarding the American cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. Similar in style to the US press, he tries to prove that the strikes were indeed valid and neccessary according to international law. 

Kirgis claims that the target in Afghanistan was identified as 'an extensive terrorism training complex', and ergo it was a valid target. However, is it not interesting that very 'complex' never would have existed had it not been for extensive CIA training and funding? A fact that seems to have been overlooked, as well as the fact that even if it was a terrorism complex, it is still illegal to arbitrarily take life without due process. Without the rule of law, what are the international treaties that the nations of the world sign to worth? In this case, the US decided to become the prosecutor, defender, judge, jury and executioner. And what a trial; most of the 'criminals' were innocent civilians, and their murderers will most likely never be brought to trial. 

The factory in Sudan was identified as a chemical warfare plant, according to US officials. Yet, prior to the bombings, we heard no evidence given to that effect. And after the event, when numerous neutral observers called for an independent investigation, even former US President Jimmy Carter, we heard nothing from the US, except a flat 'no'. Surely if the evidence is as irrefutable as to warrant such a response, it can be heard in open court? 

In the article, Kirgis claims that this was self-defense, but it obviously was not. Self defense occurs between an attacker and his victim; in this case, the attacker was unidentified. No evidence was proven or even shown; only speculation. 

However, article 51 of the UN Charter does recognise the right of self -defense. In that case, Sudan and Afghanistan would legally be allowed to exact measures against the US, if we are to take Frederic Kirgis's interpretation, since there is no doubt that the US did in fact take civilian life, without adhering to international law in the slightest. 

There should be no double standard. The United States of America acted contrary to international law, and its own domestic constitutional law ( as well exposed by Professor Francis Boyle). It should be brought to justice, but as my law professor used to say,' law, especially international law, is always interwoven with politics.' 

 
Professor Kirgis responds: 
The Flash Insight series is intended to shed light on the international law issues raised by significant current events, taking into account the positions taken by the governments involved. The Flash Insight on cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan reported the assertions of the United States government (as well as a statement by Sudanese officials), not as an endorsement of any position, but as a necessary basis for framing the legal issues. In accordance with ASIL policy, the Flash Insight made no attempt to show that the strikes were either proper or improper under international law.