| Summary: | The traditional substantive framework of the use of force in international law has been challenged by recent developments involving non-state actors. This dissertation considers the legality of the use of force against non-state actors, specifically terrorists, where the terrorist acts are not attributable to the territorial state. The United States' air campaign against the Islamic State in Syria is examined to determine whether the United States' conduct constitutes a lawful exercise of the use of force in international law. The substantive framework of the use of force in international law is first analysed, which includes an explanation of the scope of the prohibition of the use of force in international law and the various exceptions to this prohibition. This is followed by a description of the focus of this paper, terrorism and counterterrorism, and of the development of the use of force against terrorists in international law. The current status of the use of force against terrorists in international law is elucidated. The United States' use of force against the Islamic State in Syria is contextualised through the provision of a brief history of the conflict in Syria and the emergence of the Islamic State as a terrorist threat. Possible legal justifications regarding United States' use of force in Syria are examined to conclude whether the air strikes are lawful in terms of international law on the use of force. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the growing debate about the legality of the use of force against terrorists and eventually, to a clearer framework on the use of force in international law.
|
|---|
