La guerra global contra el terrorismoun análisis de la crisis del derecho internacional antes y después del 11-S

Abstract

After 9/11, and under the so-called “global war against terrorism” paradigm, we have experienced a proliferation of practices and speeches that advocate a widening of norms and principles that underpin Public International Law or that, directly, accuse it of obsolescence and impugn its validity. The choice and deployment of a war-paradigm to tackle a transnational phenomenon such as international terrorism has been justified by presenting war as the only, necessary, just and effective option to combat such a threat. In this context, the purpose of this work is to examine the arguments - often of a moral or political nature - that are being used in order to justify each of the decisions that, within this "war on terrorism", have expressed a deviation from the traditional legal framework and have demanded its amendment or suppression. The ultimate goal is to assess to what extent these approaches may be putting at risk the pillars on which International Law is based, in particular: the prohibition of armed force, the notion of armed conflict and principles of independence and non-discrimination in International Humanitarian Law.