4 ms·

Interesting examples, I appreciate your distinction using legal terms such as "use of force". That said my use of the word "War" is not very helpful and I shou

Interesting examples, I appreciate your distinction using legal terms such as "use of force". That said my use of the word "War" is not very helpful and I should have used "armed conflict". I would not disagree with your examples, but certainly the post WWII (UN era) examples are the most useful for purpose of legal precedent. Aside from Lebanon there are similar instances of the US intervening on behalf of democratically elected governments, especially in Africa, but as you noted the US role is on a sliding scale when generally the use of force is not authorized. The pirates is very interesting too, I know there are other instances such as Greek pirates (pre UN era) but assuming your referencing "Somali pirates", Somalia is unusual in that it is a recognized State with no recognized government, but here I would not say this is a declared war rather the authorized use of force to protect vessals on the high seas, but I have to concede it is fairly certain some missions were more target specific. I still think the US "War on Terror" is setting all kinds of precedent as to US authorized use of force against non-state actors, but I am far from saying your position is wrong and the burden is on me to express myself more clearly and not put something in its most simple terms out of convenience, and I am happy to enjoy a spirited exchange of ideas on HN.

mpyne 13y ago
If you're still interested in the topic one of the links I came across yesterday while researching my own answer is a law blog's book review of a text that aims to examine the legality of the use of armed force against "non-state actors". http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-force-against-non-state-actors/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-f... I haven't read the book myself but it does look interesting. As far as the pirates I was mentioning, it wasn't actually about the Somali pirates but the ones in the age of sail. Back then pirates operating under the authority of a nation-state were "privateers" and carried a letter of marque. Non-state pirates were reviled internationally and hunted down and destroyed wherever they were seen. I do agree to uneasiness about the "war on terror" (going on 12 years now) but at the same time I think it's inevitable that the U.S. will have to set the precedent; no other nation is such a lightning rod as the U.S. is now, with the possible exception of Israel. But who knows, maybe we as grouping of nations will cooperate to revise the Geneva Conventions in response to the requirements for counter-terrorism?

mpyne 13y ago

If you're still interested in the topic one of the links I came across yesterday while researching my own answer is a law blog's book review of a text that aims to examine the legality of the use of armed force against "non-state actors". http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-force-against-non-state-actors/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/extraterritorial-use-of-f... I haven't read the book myself but it does look interesting. As far as the pirates I was mentioning, it wasn't actually about the Somali pirates but the ones in the age of sail. Back then pirates operating under the authority of a nation-state were "privateers" and carried a letter of marque. Non-state pirates were reviled internationally and hunted down and destroyed wherever they were seen. I do agree to uneasiness about the "war on terror" (going on 12 years now) but at the same time I think it's inevitable that the U.S. will have to set the precedent; no other nation is such a lightning rod as the U.S. is now, with the possible exception of Israel. But who knows, maybe we as grouping of nations will cooperate to revise the Geneva Conventions in response to the requirements for counter-terrorism?