Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

September 11, 2001 has become a milestone in the annals of history. International law, especially on the use of force and laws of armed conflict, is now discussed with reference to the state of the law before and after that date. One of the quagmires which the events of that day thrust upon international law is how to categorize those involved in the armed conflict that directly resulted from the terrorist attacks. Conventional wisdom holds that Taliban soldiers can be treated as prisoners of war (POWs), while Al Qaeda soldiers cannot. The attitude of the United States has been a slight variation of this view. This article examines both the conventional wisdom and the U.S. approach and concludes that, in principle, both categories of soldiers can qualify as POWs. Part II gives a background history of Afghanistan and of the emergence of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Part III discusses the legal nature of the attacks of September 11th, and notes that the attacks were criminal as well as acts of aggression. Part IV applies the relevant provisions of the Third Geneva Convention to the conflict in Afghanistan. It examines the arguments for and against granting POW status to the soldiers of the Taliban and of Al Qaeda, and concludes that both classes of soldiers qualify for protected status.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS