Amerykańska operacja militarna w Afganistanie a prawo państwa do samoobrony

• Autorzy: Marek M. Malinowski

Warianty tytułu

American military operation in Afghanistan vs the right to self-defence

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Autor omawia interwencję zbrojną w Afganistanie rozpatrując ją pod kątem jej zgodności z prawem międzynarodowym. Wykazuje, że interwencja ta była raczej improwizacją zorganizowaną z potrzeby chwili wobec braku odpowiednich do zaistniałej sytuacji procedur międzynarodowych.

EN

The US military operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan being as a reaction to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 had not, contrary to the later invasion of Iraq in March 2003, triggered off such a heated political and legal debate as the one latter one. Because of its close proximity to the terrorist attacks, the political world and international societies showed more understanding of the reasons for using a military force in the operation in Afghanistan which was, inter alia, directed against certain alleged perpetrators, or named terrorists, allegedly funding rescue in Afghanistan. It was also directed against the Talib regime which had allowed the Afghan territory to be used as a terrorist base, and which had refused the submit to the UN Security Council's request to deport Osama bin Laden and other terrorist suspects. The US government justified its military intervention referring to the inalienable right of each state to defend its sovereignty, and indeed, the US sovereignty was violated in the September 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre. This justification, however, is not free from a number of serious doubts as to the lawfulness or legality of that act and its compatibility with the common practice of international law regarding the conditions for its application. In particular, the US government had failed to prove in a sufficient manner that the military act was really a necessary measure to be taken by the state to defend its sovereignty, or whether it was taken in a state of emergency, in the absence of other available measures, remedies or time given for lengthy deliberations. Besides, it is also doubtful whether the military operation had indeed been kept to the absolute minimum level and stayed within that limit. Its target were, after all, not only the remote and technically modest Al-kaida training bases, but also the military installations of the de facto Afghan government and some other strategic goals not at all in the terrorists' hands. What was more, the US had not even attempted to procure from the UN a resolution available under article 42 of the UN Chart calling for the restoration of international peace and security. Instead, it decided upon a unilateral military operation. It may be therefore assumed that the main reason for the launching of the "Enduring Freedom" operation was, on the one hand, taking a revenge for the barbaric attack on the US and, on the other, a political will to overthrow the government which, apart from being hostile to the US, supported the anti-US terrorist movement (the next step of this political philosophy being the attack on Iraq).

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Polityka; Prawo międzynarodowe; Stosunki międzynarodowe; Wojsko; Interwencja zbrojna

EN

Politics; International law; International relations; Army; Military intervention

• Czasopismo: Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny
• Rocznik: 2006
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 139--154

Twórcy

autor

Marek M. Malinowski

Bibliografia

• Czapliński W., Wyrozumska A., Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne - zagadnienia systemowe, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2004
• Czapliński W., Wyrozumska A., Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Zagadnienia systemowe, Wydawnictwa Prawnicze PWN, Warszawa 1999
• Fox G.H., Addendum to ASIL Insight on Terrorist Attacks, September 2001
• ICJ Reports 1986,International Law Reports (IRL)
• ICJ Reports, 1996,35 International Legal Materials (ILM), 1996
• Jastrzębski P., Wojna w Afganistanie. Zbrojne konflikty i spory międzynarodowe u progu XXI w: Analiza problemów i studia przypadków, Atlas 2, Wrocław 2003
• Kirgis F.L., Cruise Missile Strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, September 1998, www.asil.org
• Łozowski A., Zawidzka A., Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne, C. H. Beck, Warszawa 2003
• O'Connell M.E., The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defence, ASIL Task Force Papers, sierpień 2002
• Paust J.J., Comment: Security Council Authorization to Combat Terrorism in Afghanistan, October 23, 2001, www.asil.org
• Równy K., Samoobrona zbiorowa w Karcie Narodów Zjednoczonych, "Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny" 1962
• Rzeczpospolita z 31 grudnia 2004
• Shaw M.N., Prawo międzynarodowe, Książka i Wiedza, Warszawa 2000
• Skubiszewski K., Uprawnienie państw do samoobrony, "Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny" 1962, z 4
• Strachota K., Afganistan po 11 września, "Sprawy Międzynarodowe" 2002
• Symonides J., Prawno międzynarodowe aspekty walki z terroryzmem, "Sprawy Międzynarodowe" 2001, nr 4
• Waldock C.H.M., The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law, 81 Hague Recueil
• Woodward B., Wojna Busha, Magnum, Warszawa 2003
• Zoll A., Kodeks kurny,zasada ogólna,Zakamycze, Kraków 1998