Abstract

The use of force against terrorism remains a widely debated matter among scholars. This article aims to show that taking forcible measures in response to terrorist attacks is consistent with the rules of jus ad bellum, even in non-consensual extra-territorial settings. Post-9/11 state practice and opinio juris support the view that terrorist attacks may amount to fully-fledged armed attacks. Yet, it is still unclear if and when a State victim of terrorism may intervene against terrorists located outside its territory. While the question would be irrelevant where the host State intervened against the terrorists present on its territory, it would not be so if it were unwilling or unable to act. In such a scenario, the victim State would have to choose between compromising its territorial integrity or that of its counterpart. It is against this background that the “Unwilling or Unable” doctrine will be evaluated in this article.

Keywords: Self-defence, Non-state actors, International law, Terrorism, armed attack, unwilling or unable

How to Cite:

Pronesti, D., (2024) “Striking Back, Striking Now: Navigating the Legality of Extra-Territorial Armed Responses to Terrorist Attacks Originating from Abroad”, Law & Criminology Journal 1(1), 1-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/lcj.91534