Babysitting Terrorists: Should States Be Strictly Liable for Failing to Prevent Transborder Attacks?

The world now faces new threats and needs to rethink international mechanisms. 9/11 is perhaps the most pivotal point in recent memory with regard to international law. It changed the way states protect their borders, the way immigration flows in most Western countries, the way modern states conceiv...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Berkeley journal of international law 2005-09, Vol.23 (3), p.615
Main Author: Vincent-Joel Proulx
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
International law
Liability
Prevention
September 11 terrorist attacks-2001
Terrorism
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The world now faces new threats and needs to rethink international mechanisms. 9/11 is perhaps the most pivotal point in recent memory with regard to international law. It changed the way states protect their borders, the way immigration flows in most Western countries, the way modern states conceive terrorism and counter-terrorism, and so forth. The importance of the response to 9/11 cannot be overemphasized, as it marked a clear departure from prior practice in several areas of international law, state responsibility being central. The response to 9/11 also initiated an important shift in the law of indirect state responsibility. With the advent of important milestones in the field of state responsibility, such as the Tehran decision and the Draft Articles, the transition from a model of attribution and direct responsibility to a model of indirect responsibility was natural and logical. The harboring and supporting principle has essentially taken over as the linchpin of modern state responsibility vis-a-vis terrorism.
ISSN:1085-5718