Explore the vast range of titles available.

This insightful text examines the widely varying attitudes to terrorist attack in Western government and society. The focal point of the book is the ideological gap between the moral reaction to terrorism and the military and political response that follows. Rather than there being a predictable response, a spectrum of possible outcomes emerges. Using this variety of reactions from support for terrorist aims through to outright condemnation, a middle ground may be established between individual rights and security for the many.

The central question of this pioneer work on the responsibility of non-state actors (NSAs) and the consequences thereof, is: To whom are such actors, in particular armed opposition groups and business corporations, accountable for their actions in armed conflict and in peace times? Does responsibility in international law apply to these NSAs qua groups? While much has been written about NSAs' rights and participation in the global theatre as well as the responsibility of the state and international organisations for wrongful acts by NSAs, scant attention has been paid to questions of NSA organizational responsibility, in spite of their potential to wreak international havoc. This volume offers innovative insights into this unexplored territory by analyzing responsibility questions from both theoretical and empirical perspectives.

To whom are armed opposition groups and business corporations accountable for their actions in armed conflict and in peace times? Are they responsible as a group? This pioneer book offers innovative theoretical and empirical analyses to these questions.

With the rise of international acts of terrorism there has been a commensurate rise in the level of international cooperation in the suppression of terrorism. This book, originally published in 1985, is a detailed and authoritative study of the background to this cooperation, the ways in which it has developed and the obstacles to its proper implementation. Particular emphasis is placed on a s tudy of the European experience of international cooperation, the Council of Europe Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism being used as a case study.

This chapter explores two main observations regarding the rights and obligations of non-state actors (NSAs) under international law. First, there is considerable disagreement as to what the position of the NSA is under international law; and second, flowing from that and from the fragmented state of international law, that there is an urgent doctrinal need for an integrated and comprehensive assessment of the status of the NSA in international law. Because it is indisputable that the NSA has already been recognized as enjoying a set of rights and being bound by certain obligations in international law, the chapter examines the desirability of charting international legal development towards further enhancement of the legal status already secured by the NSA. Since the legal system is essentially a social system which governs relations between and among social actors, rights and duties are meaningful only as reciprocal between these actors. This chapter demonstrates that much of the controversy yielded by the law-making status of non-state actors stems from an attempt to bolster the scope, the expertise and the legitimacy of international legal scholarship. It accordingly starts with some introductory remarks about the necessity to clearly explain how we understand the international legal system before venturing into any examination of the status of the actors involved therein. In contrast, positivists defend the continued relevance of inter-state international law and argue that current categories are sufficient to grapple with the problems raised by the growing role of non-state actors. The introduction of non-state actors in the scheme of international law-making through their elevation to the status of lawmaker provides a great advantage in that it allows scholars to extend the limits of international law. It has addressed three reasons explaining why international legal scholars are so inclined to defend the law-making status of non-state actors.